Re: ouch..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1BfhRauFvwfeature=player_embedded On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:04 PM, David Swafford da...@davidswafford.com wrote: I find it very amusing when viewing the statement regarding the Nexus product line, announced 2008, delivered a few months later..., considering that it has significant QA issues that have made us regret our purchases of all Nexus gear. We are primarily a Cat6509 shop and standard features, ones that have been around for decades, simply were left out of Nexus just so they could rush to market (VTP comes to mind on the 5K line). David. On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Martin Hepworth max...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ -- Martin Hepworth Oxford, UK
Re: ouch..
On 9/14/11 14:24 , Don Gould wrote: * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution? need more L3 1u TORs with 4 x 40 and 48 x 10...
Re: ouch..
Or...Go ahead and keep buying 6509 chassis, the 7600 brand is just a marketing thing -C On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
That will either be because you exceeded your port count or the RTSP ALG is broken. -- Leigh Porter On 15 Sep 2011, at 07:48, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 06:36:42 -, Leigh Porter said: I'm looking forward to the awful experience of NAT444 promoting IPv6. In NAT444, no one can hear you scream __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. -- Regards, Jason Leschnik. Mob. 0432 35 4224 Uni mail. jml...@uow.edu.au
Re: ouch..
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Jason Leschnik wrote: If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. I asked our account manager. I got the following link: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/trust-relationships-and-reputation-how-cisco-differs-from-the-competition/ Yes, it's indeed from Cisco. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: ouch..
On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Jason Leschnik wrote: Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. OTOH, you do see Micr0$0ft doing everything they can to imitate Apple. I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. They have gone to the trouble and expense of covering the under construction paneling with a full-color mural touting this fact, including employees dressed in brightly colored Apple-store-like T-shirts sporting name badges identical to those worn by the employees in the Apple store. I wonder if Micr0$0ft is going to develop a Zune cash register, too? Owen
Re: ouch..
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:51 AM, Jason Leschnik wrote: If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. OTOH, you do see Micr0$0ft doing everything they can to imitate Apple. I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. Jima
Re: ouch..
Once upon a time, Jima na...@jima.tk said: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: ouch..
Original Message - From: Jason Leschnik lesch...@gmail.com If this is really from Cisco, it must put a smile on the face of Juniper to know their competitor of 10x the revenue is watching their moves so closely... Typically in the Mac vs. PC adds you see the non established player (apple) making pokes at the established. And we all remember how that worked out *last* time: http://www.macmothership.com/gallery/newads2/seriouslyIBM_l.jpg Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: ouch..
Once upon a time, Jima na...@jima.tk said: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. Oh, wow; been a few years since I heard that one. I'll admit, it seems at least remotely viable. No, in the MoA case I'd say it's more about obvious, direct competition; of all the (according to the site) 4.3 miles of potential storefront at Mall of America, Microsoft chose *directly across the hallway* from the long-standing Apple Store. (Okay, that might be hyperbole -- it may have been a shop or two down, as well; I forget.) Jima
Re: ouch..
Microsoft had a direct dig at vmware recently (good video IMO) http://vmlimited.ctp.trafficmgr.com/ Matt On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Jima na...@jima.tk wrote: Once upon a time, Jima na...@jima.tk said: On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Owen DeLong wrote: I was at Valley Fair mall the other day. Micr0$0ft is apparently building a new store directly across from the Apple store there. It's funny; they did the exact same thing at Mall of America maybe a year ago. I guess your report confirms it was a strategy, rather than a really absurd coincidence. They could be following the (possibly urban legend) Burger King model. Supposedly, McDonald's would spend a bunch of time and money doing market research, surveys, and such before placing a new restaurant. Burger King would wait for McDonald's to spend the time and money, and then open a new restaurant across the street. Oh, wow; been a few years since I heard that one. I'll admit, it seems at least remotely viable. No, in the MoA case I'd say it's more about obvious, direct competition; of all the (according to the site) 4.3 miles of potential storefront at Mall of America, Microsoft chose *directly across the hallway* from the long-standing Apple Store. (Okay, that might be hyperbole -- it may have been a shop or two down, as well; I forget.) Jima -- *mattlog.net*
Re: ouch..
Now just where would the fun in THAT be? ;) Scott On 9/14/11 11:00 AM, James Jones wrote: Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Martin Hepworth wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ Saying the other brand sucks doesn't make yours any better. Besides, there are other big players on the market. Terribly lame of Cisco... Vlad Galu g...@packetdam.com
Re: ouch..
On 14/09/2011 11:42, Martin Hepworth wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ Wow, classy. Nick
Re: ouch..
Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 05-sep-2011 Creation Date: 05-sep-2011 Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012 Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Created on: 05-Sep-11 Expires on: 05-Sep-12 Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Technical Contact: Private, Registration overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Domain servers in listed order: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ; DiG 9.7.3 OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN A 98.129.229.190 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns36.domaincontrol.com. OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns35.domaincontrol.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN A 216.69.185.18 ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN A 208.109.255.18 braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190 ; DiG 9.7.3 -x 98.129.229.190 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN SOA ns.rackspace.com. hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300 --- Brian Raaen Network Architect Zcorum On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ -- Martin Hepworth Oxford, UK
Re: ouch..
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 07:15 -0400, Brian Raaen wrote: Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. (1) If Cisco were responsible, would they want to advertise the fact ? (2) If Cisco feel their intellectual and copyright property is being abused, Cisco lawyers would have the Cisco name and branding removed in seconds ! Paul, England, EU.
Re: ouch..
Main cisco page has a link to it... Frank On 9/14/2011 2:15 PM, Brian Raaen wrote: Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 05-sep-2011 Creation Date: 05-sep-2011 Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012 Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Created on: 05-Sep-11 Expires on: 05-Sep-12 Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Technical Contact: Private, Registration overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Domain servers in listed order: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ; DiG 9.7.3 OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN A 98.129.229.190 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns36.domaincontrol.com. OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns35.domaincontrol.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN A 216.69.185.18 ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN A 208.109.255.18 braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190 ; DiG 9.7.3 -x 98.129.229.190 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN SOA ns.rackspace.com. hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300 --- Brian Raaen Network Architect Zcorum On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ -- Martin Hepworth Oxford, UK
Re: ouch..
On 09/14/2011 07:58 AM, Brian Raaen wrote: Nice, I didn't see that. Then I guess whoever set up this site was a shill for Cisco, I just love how instead of focusing on developing better products, that they are more about marketing now. --- Brian Raaen Network Architect Cisco has always been about marketing from since Chambers took over way back when!
RE: ouch..
-Original Message- From: Erik Bais [mailto:eb...@a2b-internet.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:56 AM To: 'Frank Habicht'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: ouch.. Personally I think this is a pathetic action from Cisco, however I'm not surprised by them doing it ... Regards, Erik Bais Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy. My first thought was a disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee. Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in its cartoon strips all those years. Payback???
Re: ouch..
On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 14/09/2011 11:42, Martin Hepworth wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ Wow, classy. Nick Wow... If Cisco slides any further into mudslinging, I'll expect the company to run for president. Owen
Re: ouch..
Or possibly Cisco is trying to cover their tracks. Owen On Sep 14, 2011, at 4:15 AM, Brian Raaen wrote: Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. whois overpromisesunderdelivers.net Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 05-sep-2011 Creation Date: 05-sep-2011 Expiration Date: 05-sep-2012 Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET Created on: 05-Sep-11 Expires on: 05-Sep-12 Last Updated on: 05-Sep-11 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Technical Contact: Private, Registration overpromisesunderdelivers@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598 Domain servers in listed order: NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM braaen@brian:~$ dig OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ; DiG 9.7.3 OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40339 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN A 98.129.229.190 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns36.domaincontrol.com. OVERPROMISESUNDERDELIVERS.NET. 3364 IN NS ns35.domaincontrol.com. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns35.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN A 216.69.185.18 ns36.domaincontrol.com. 3046IN A 208.109.255.18 braaen@brian:~$ dig -x 98.129.229.190 ; DiG 9.7.3 -x 98.129.229.190 ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 26507 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;190.229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 229.129.98.in-addr.arpa. 300IN SOA ns.rackspace.com. hostmaster.rackspace.com. 1314291452 3600 300 1814400 300 --- Brian Raaen Network Architect Zcorum On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:42:35AM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote: http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ -- Martin Hepworth Oxford, UK
Re: ouch..
One: Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. Another: Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy. My first thought was a disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee. Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in its cartoon strips all those years. Payback??? I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and who has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it. Cisco marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy and rackspace. Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our competitors networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will the pages be hosted. -- ++ytti
Re: ouch..
Check out the White Papar referenced http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/pdfs/Why_Cisco_Not_Juniper.pdf It has Cisco's usual White Paper format and their copyright stamped on the bottom which is also dates 9/11. If it's not Cisco or one of it's affiliates, I would expect them to be contacting their so called Marketing folks anytime now. If this really is Cisco i'm with Owen and expect a presidential bid announcement any second now Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) - Max On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote: One: Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site. Another: Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy. My first thought was a disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee. Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in its cartoon strips all those years. Payback??? I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and who has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it. Cisco marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy and rackspace. Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our competitors networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will the pages be hosted. -- ++ytti
Re: ouch..
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.
Re: ouch..
Define Cisco in your context please. Cisco marketing?? Cisco sales?? Cisco TAC? Cisco product development?? I've been told several lies by some Cisco SE's that have worked with me, but I wouldn't go as far to say Cisco lies. - Max On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Always Learning na...@u61.u22.net wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.
Re: ouch..
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:44:10 CDT, N. Max Pierson said: Define Cisco in your context please. Cisco marketing?? Cisco sales?? Cisco TAC? Cisco product development?? Cisco outsourced PR campaign? Wouldn't be the first time a company has hired a shop, stuck a link to the result on their home page, and then been surprised by what they linked to. In any case, I'm sure *somebody* is having an uncomfortable conversation in their supervisor's office this morning. ;) pgpZSBaqeud2w.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: ouch..
-Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55 - Re: ouch..
Well, I'm not surprised at all, being that Cisco also does this to Alcatel-Lucent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX3zvjX3c5Q I think Cisco is just running scared now. If they didn't charge so much for their products, they wouldn't have this problem. In addition, I think they also thought that they would be # 1 forever and that nobody could touch them, so they just stopped trying to stay ahead of the competition. _ Allen -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org [mailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:56 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 55 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org 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 nanog-requ...@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-ow...@nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of NANOG digest... Today's Topics: 1. RE: NAT444 or ? (Dan Wing) 2. ouch.. (Martin Hepworth) 3. Re: ouch.. (Vlad Galu) 4. Re: ouch.. (Nick Hilliard) 5. Re: ouch.. (Brian Raaen) 6. Re: ouch.. (Always Learning) 7. Re: ouch.. (Frank Habicht) 8. HP A-series, H3C, Huawei and their capabilities in real-life (Mark Smith) 9. RE: ouch.. (Erik Bais) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:28:17 -0700 From: Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com To: 'Owen DeLong' o...@delong.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: NAT444 or ? Message-ID: 0a4d01cc729f$1bc0abc0$53420340$@com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:43 PM To: Dan Wing Cc: 'Leigh Porter'; 'David Israel'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: NAT444 or ? Good point, but aside from these scaling issues which I expect can be resolved to a point, the more serious issue, I think, is applications that just do not work with double NAT. Now, I have not conducted any serious research into this, but it seems that draft-donley-nat444- impacts does appear to have highlight issues that may have been down to implementation. Draft-donley-nat444-impacts conflates bandwidth constraints with CGN with in-home NAT. Until those are separated and then analyzed carefully, it is harmful to draw conclusions such as NAT444 bad; NAT44 good. Continuing to make this claim does not make it any more true. Draft-donley took networks and measured their real-world functionality without NAT444, then, added NAT444 and repeated the same tests. Regardless of the underlying issue(s), the addition of NAT444 to the mix resulted in the forms of service degradation enumerated in the draft. I disagree it reached that conclusion. That may have been its intent. Further, I would not ever say NAT444 bad; NAT44 good. I would say, rather, NAT44 bad, NAT444 worse. I think that's a pretty safe and non-harmful thing to say. Yes, your statement is completely accurate. I agree that IPv4 address sharing causes additional problems (which encompasses all forms of IPv4 address sharing), and CGN causes additional problems. Other simple tricks such as ensuring that your own internal services such as DNS are available without traversing NAT also help. Yep. But some users want to use other DNS servers for performance (e.g., Google's or OpenDNS servers, especially considering they could point the user at a 'better' (closer) CDN based on Client IP), to avoid ISP DNS hijacking, or for content control (e.g., parental control of DNS hostnames). That traffic will, necessarily, traverse the CGN. To avoid users burning through their UDP port allocation for those DNS queries it is useful for the CGN to have short timeouts for port 53. If the user chooses to use a DNS server on the other side of a NAT, then, they are choosing to inflict whatever damage upon themselves. I'm not saying that short UDP/53 timeouts are a bad idea, but, I am saying that the more stuff you funnel through an LSN at the carrier, the more stuff you will see break. This would lead me to want to avoid funneling anything through said NAT which I could avoid. Then again, I run my own authoritative and recursive nameservers in my home and don't use any NAT at all, so, perhaps my perspective is different from others. Yeah, you are probably of about 1000 or maybe 3000 people in the world that do that. Seems to be a minority. Certainly some more work can be done in this area, but I fear that the only way a real idea as to how much NAT444 really doe break things will be operational experience. Yep. (Same as everything else.) I'm sure that will happen soon enough. I, for one, am
Re: ouch..
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS-1x100GE_DS.html ? James Jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote: Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/ amazingly professional. not. but lead contestant for pathetic jealousy post of the year
RE: ouch..
Great, can you actually order one and really have it delivered? Not that you would really want to I guess, but if you were into that kind of thing.. Point me to it if I am wrong, but I still do not see an MX-series 100G interface even on the Juniper site.. http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/mx960/#modules -- Leigh -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:p...@paulgraydon.co.uk] Sent: 14 September 2011 16:48 To: James Jones; Leigh Porter Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Always Learning Subject: Re: ouch.. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS- 1x100GE_DS.html ? James Jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote: Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
I stand corrected. I willing to admit when I am wrong. So do that only have 100Gb on the carrier routers? Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Paul p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers/ps5763/CRS-1x100GE_DS.html ? James Jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote: Funny they forget to mention that Cisco doesn't have 100g any where. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Leigh Porter leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Always Learning [mailto:na...@u61.u22.net] Sent: 14 September 2011 14:39 To: N. Max Pierson Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ouch.. On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU. Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? -- Leigh __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: ouch..
On 9/14/2011 10:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? That's disingenuous. The question was not whether Cisco has ever lied, but whether the web page lies. The web page very carefully picks and chooses facts, but I don't think it actually lies. Therefore, it isn't slander. It's just mudslinging. Also, on another note, nobody should be surprised that the registration information doesn't say Cisco. Think about it: would they want whois overpromisesunderdelivers.com to say Cisco all over it?
Re: ouch..
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:02 AM, David Israel da...@otd.com wrote: On 9/14/2011 10:41 AM, Leigh Porter wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 08:33 -0500, N. Max Pierson wrote: Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) Slander means falsehood. Cisco tells lies ? Lies? So who has 100G MX series cards then..? That's disingenuous. The question was not whether Cisco has ever lied, but whether the web page lies. The web page very carefully picks and chooses facts, but I don't think it actually lies. Therefore, it isn't slander. It's just mudslinging. Also, on another note, nobody should be surprised that the registration information doesn't say Cisco. Think about it: would they want whois overpromisesunderdelivers.com to say Cisco all over it? Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. -- Brandon Galbraith US Voice: 630.492.0464
Re: ouch..
--- brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote: From: Brandon Galbraith brandon.galbra...@gmail.com Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. --- Unless it's the ERX series. Blech, it puts a bad taste in my mouth just writing the acronym ERX. Thank $deity that I don't have to work on those anymore... scott
Re: ouch..
You seem to have accidentally put an 'R' between your E and X ;) On 9/14/2011 4:05 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: --- brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote: From: Brandon Galbraithbrandon.galbra...@gmail.com Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. --- Unless it's the ERX series. Blech, it puts a bad taste in my mouth just writing the acronym ERX. Thank $deity that I don't have to work on those anymore... scott
Re: ouch..
Well... Seems to be popping up on global NOG lists today. When you're already in trouble with the wife you go have a beer with your mates. This campaign got all of you to stop talking about NAT444 and focused on talking about Cisco and Juniper gear. Hell, if I put my tinfoil hat on, I'd say this was a joint venture by both vendors to get you all to focus on their kit and stop looking at other brands or talking about technology standards. How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site? * Does Juniper break promises? * Does Cisco break them? * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper? * What is the best technology for each company? * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution? ...I could go on... It's 9:20am here and I woke up to a flurry of the worlds leading IP people talking about Cisco and Juniper - To: TheMarketingGuysFromCiscoJuniper From: OtherBrandUser Subject: Global brand awareness Marketing campaign Body: Job well done. D On 15/09/2011 9:05 a.m., Scott Weeks wrote: --- brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote: From: Brandon Galbraithbrandon.galbra...@gmail.com Juniper: Who needs to waste time with pathetic marketing videos when you're gear just works. --- Unless it's the ERX series. Blech, it puts a bad taste in my mouth just writing the acronym ERX. Thank $deity that I don't have to work on those anymore... scott
Re: ouch..
In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don Gould wrote: How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site? Ok, I'll take a swing at your list... * Does Juniper break promises? Yes. * Does Cisco break them? Yes. * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper? It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list. * What is the best technology for each company? Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time. Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty. * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution? Yes, but I can't afford it. Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the thought of NAT444? :) :) :) -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpEPzh82PK9Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ouch..
On 15/09/2011 9:46 a.m., Leo Bicknell wrote: Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the thought of NAT444? Clearly some hate it enough to go to the trouble of making a 'we think they suck' web site in an attempt to draw readers in a different direction. Now with respect to your list... I'm sure there will be many that will be quite interested to see it, so Monday? :) Beer D
Re: ouch..
On 9/14/11 2:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don Gould wrote: How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site? Ok, I'll take a swing at your list... * Does Juniper break promises? Yes. * Does Cisco break them? Yes. * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper? It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list. * What is the best technology for each company? Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time. Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty. * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution? Yes, but I can't afford it. Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the thought of NAT444? :) :) :) Just the thought of NAT444 makes my stomach turn.
Re: ouch..
Nat444 or frontal labotomy hmm let's see at least with the second I would still be able to make a living as a micro soft network admin;) Sent from my iPhone On 2011-09-14, at 6:07 PM, James Jones ja...@freedomnet.co.nz wrote: On 9/14/11 2:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:24:25AM +1200, Don Gould wrote: How many of you have sat and thought about the merit of this web site? Ok, I'll take a swing at your list... * Does Juniper break promises? Yes. * Does Cisco break them? Yes. * What bad things and experiences have you had with Cisco, Juniper? It might take me several days, and many pages to compile that list. * What is the best technology for each company? Cisco: The AGS+ was ahead of its time. Jiniper: The Olive is quite nifty. * Did you know that Cisco has a 100Gb solution? Yes, but I can't afford it. Now, with that out of the way, how much does everyone else hate even the thought of NAT444? :) :) :) Just the thought of NAT444 makes my stomach turn.
