mark.tinka at seacom.com
Wed Sep 16 08:40:07 UTC 2020
On 15/Sep/20 21:07, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> This gets complicated quickly, and that complication can only be
> solved by adding complication to silicon, which is what you want not
> to do when the speed of your underlying forwarding plane is increasing
> by leaps and bounds. Good, cheap, fast. Choose two - or maybe one.
More complex silicon means tons of R&D, which means big prices to
recover that from operators who "want want want" that R&D in their networks.
> As Mark points out, many companies have made their fortunes with a
> full stack product offering, from hardware and software to design,
> engineering and operations. It's not a bad business model as long as
> you realise that it's time-limited to the technology of the day. When
> it draws to a close, it's hard to turn companies around that have been
> used to a single-product or single-vertical cash trough which no
> longer exists. Some have done this successfully; others have floundered.
The one thing you have to give Cisco is they know how to market... in
slides. That boring RFC document looks colorful, bright and full of
promi$e when Cisco have turned into a marketing slide.
It takes a lot of find the "boring" slides of some other vendors more
appealing, as a solution.
More information about the NANOG