Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
Justin M. Streiner
streiner at cluebyfour.org
Tue Jan 11 05:11:27 CST 2011
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:
> Someone has mentioned that it all really depends on your needs and what
> it is you want to provide.
Agree 100%. Some vendors are better at delivering X than others.
> IMO, every vendor has something they are good at. I wouldn't use Cisco
> for everything, nor Juniper etc etc...
A lot of it comes down to striking an appropriate balance between the
points I made in my last message. Using a different vendor for every
service you offer would probably not scale too well in terms of
manageability, but getting into bed with one vendor can have consequences
as well. It's ultimately up to you to decide how you want to proceed
since you're the one spending the money :)
> The concern I sense is that from Cisco's POV, it's their way or the
> highway. Not only do you pay a premium for smartnet, but if there's an
> issue, they are quick to point the finger. That is not service/support
> that I desire....
Some of that perceived arrogance came from being the big kid on the
block. The way Cisco acted in the past when they were pretty much the
only game in town reminds me a lot of the way Microsoft and Oracle
conduct(ed) their business as well, even today **.
I haven't seen much of that from Cisco in a while, but if I have a
problem with a TAC case or a TAC engineer, I'll get my account team
involved. Over the years, a number of legitimate competitors to Cisco
have gained market share, and competition often has the effect of
adjusting attitudes and leveling the playing field a bit.
** - had an account rep from Cisco in the dot-com days, whose idea of
customer interaction was calling to confirm that the purchase order just
came off the fax machine :)
More information about the NANOG