Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

Thomas Donnelly tad1214 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 15:14:44 CST 2011


On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim  
<brandon.kim at brandontek.com> wrote:

>
>
> to which they would try and play the "well most people don't mix gear"..
>
>
>
> ha! Funny if you responded with, "Oh really? Thanks I didn't know that,  
> I guess I'll get all HP...who do I talk to, to return this Cisco router?"

I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an  
engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying  
another vendor they raise an eyebrow.

>
>
>
>
>
>> From: Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca
>> To: brandon.kim at brandontek.com
>> CC: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com; nanog at nanog.org
>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:06 -0500
>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>>
>> just a side note,  HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt  
>> with in relation to solving/providing inter vendor interoperability  
>> solutions.   they have PDF booklets on many  things we would run into  
>> during work.  for example,  setting up STP between Cisco and HP gear,   
>> (  
>> http://cdn.procurve..com/training/Manuals/ProCurve-and-Cisco-STP-Interoperability.pdf  
>> ).
>>
>> At the time the other vendor in this case (cisco) flat our refused to  
>> help us.  this was a few years back tho,  things may of changed.  I'd  
>> ask support "you are not telling me i'm the _only_ customer trying to  
>> do this" …   to which they would try and play the "well most people  
>> don't mix gear"..
>>
>> HP's example should be the yard stick in the field.
>>
>> -g
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Brandon Kim wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > To your point Andrey,
>> >
>> > It probably works both ways too. I'm sure HP would love to finger  
>> point as well. I remember reading for my CCNP one
>> > of the thought process behind getting all Cisco is the very reason  
>> you pointed out, get all Cisco!
>> >
>> > How convenient though for Cisco to do that, I wonder if they are  
>> being sincere(sarcasm).
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it a perfect world for Cisco to just have everyone buy their  
>> stuff...I think it's a cop out though and you really should
>> > try to support your product as best you can if it is connected to  
>> another vendor.
>> >
>> > I'm sad to hear that TACACS took that route. I hope they at least  
>> tried their hardest to support you.....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> From: khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com
>> >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500
>> >> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
>> >> To: nanog at nanog.org
>> >>
>> >> There have been awfully too many time when Cisco TAC would just say  
>> that
>> >> since the problem you are trying to troubleshoot is between Cisco and
>> >> VendorX, we can't help you. You should have bought Cisco for both  
>> sides.
>> >> I had that happen when I was troubleshooting LLDP between 3750s and  
>> Avaya
>> >> phones, TACACS between Cisco and tac_plus daemon, link bundling  
>> between
>> >> juniper EX and Cisco, some obscure switching issues between CAT and
>> >> Procurves and other examples like that just don't recall them  
>> anymore.
>> >>
>> >> Every time I'm reminded that if you have a lot of Cisco on the  
>> network, the
>> >> rest should be cisco too, unless there is a very good  
>> technical/financial
>> >> reason for it, but you should be prepared to be your own help in  
>> those
>> >> cases.
>> >>
>> >> Vendors love to point at the other vendors for solutions. At least  
>> in my
>> >> experience.
>> >>
>> >> My $0.02
>> >>
>> >> Andrey
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Greg Whynott  
>> <Greg.Whynott at oicr.on.ca>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I've tried to use other vendors threw out the years for internal  
>> L2/L3.
>> >>> Always Cisco for perimeter routing/firewalling.
>> >>>
>> >>> from my personal experience,  each time we took a chance and tried  
>> to use
>> >>> another vendor for internal L2 needs,  we would be reminded why it  
>> was a bad
>> >>> choice down the road,  due to hardware reliability,  support issues,
>> >>> multiple and ongoing software bugs,  architectural design choices.   
>> Then
>> >>> for the next few years I'd regret the decision.     This is not to  
>> say Cisco
>> >>> gear has been without its issues,  but they are much fewer and  
>> handled
>> >>> better when stuff hits the fan.
>> >>>
>> >>> the only other vendor at this point in my career I'd fee comfortable
>> >>> deploying for internal enterprise switching,  including HPC  
>> requirements
>> >>> which is not CIsco branded,  would be Force10 or Extreme.  it has  
>> always
>> >>> been Cisco for edge routing/firewalling,  but i wouldn't be opposed  
>> to
>> >>> trying Juniper for routing,  I know of a few shops who do and they  
>> have been
>> >>> pleased thus far.    I've little or no experience  with many of the  
>> other
>> >>> vendors,  and I'm sure they have good offerings,  but I won't be  
>> beta
>> >>> testing their firmwares anymore (one vendor insisted we upgrade our  
>> firmware
>> >>> on our core equipment several times in one year…).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Cisco isn't a good choice if you don't have the budget for the  
>> smart net
>> >>> contracts.   They come at a price.   a little 5505 with  
>> unrestricted license
>> >>> and contract costs over 2k,  a 5540 about 40k-70k depending on  
>> options,
>> >>> with a yearly renewal of about 15k or more…
>> >>>
>> >>> -g
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> --
>> >> Andrey Khomyakov
>> >> [khomyakov.andrey at gmail.com]
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or  
>> privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any  
>> review or distribution by anyone other than the person for whom it was  
>> originally intended is strictly prohibited. If you have received this  
>> message in error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.  
>> Opinions, conclusions or other information contained in this message  
>> may not be that of the organization.
>  		 	   		


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/




More information about the NANOG mailing list