I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past. We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future issues for exactly this reason.
HP is a great partner! If you need a router check out vYatta or pfSense - pfSense for the low end of course. - Both are open - Both have paid support and we are very happy with them. Glenn On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Brandon Kim) > 2. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Thomas Donnelly) > 3. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Greg Whynott) > 4. Re: Satellite IP (Jay Ashworth) > 5. Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > ([email protected]) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500 > From: Brandon Kim <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: nanog group <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > > 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?" > > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> CC: [email protected]; [email protected] >> 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: [email protected] >>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> <[email protected]>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 >>>> [[email protected]] >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600 > From: "Thomas Donnelly" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <op.vo32lwi8wjy...@osprey> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim > <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> CC: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> 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: [email protected] >>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> <[email protected]>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 >>>>> [[email protected]] >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500 > From: Greg Whynott <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > To: Thomas Donnelly <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > for vendors who we were not getting the goods from, I've found calling your > sales rep much more efficient than anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the > tech on the phone. Sales guys have the inside numbers to call, the clout > to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor. his pay > comes from you, you pay him, he works for 2. > > -g > > > On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim >> <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> CC: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 >>>>>> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> <[email protected]>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 >>>>>> [[email protected]] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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/ >> > > > -- > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 -0500 (EST) > From: Jay Ashworth <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Satellite IP > To: NANOG <[email protected]> > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <[email protected]> > >>> Why the hostility, Valdis? >> >> As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make >> all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact >> science, >> it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have enough >> contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every >> single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in his >> follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope another >> provider can >> come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy >> and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual provider >> guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea. > > I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not. > > "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking > strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me. > > :-) > > And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the > transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular > environment. > >> Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;) > > Are we in fact coming out of it yet? I heard it was getting deeper, > and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder. > > Cheers, > -- jra > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST) > From: [email protected] > Subject: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com? > > I have tried the usual channels ([email protected], phone calls, > "live chat") with no results. > > -Dan > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61 > *************************************
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
