On (2014-11-17 19:11 +0100), Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
What are other arguments against vendor lock-in ? Is there any argument
FOR such locks (please spare me the support issues, if you can't read
specs and SNMP, you shouldn't even try networking) ?
Did you ever experience a shift in a vendor's
On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Is it unrealistic to hope for enough salesmen pressure on the corporate
ladder to make such moronic attitude be reversed in the short term ?
No salesperson is
I've found the best method of dealing with vendors like this is to treat
them the same way they treat you. If they won't listen to technical
arguments and act like stubborn children, then I act the same way. Threaten
to take your ball and go home. Or buy everything used or from grey market
Hello,
TheWorldMainBusinessRule says: Don't work with morons!!! Never. In any
way. Even if it seems for the first look they give you prices and offers
times better than normal people. Just don't even think.
:)
On 17.11.14 20:11, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Hello,
I'm having a discussion with
If they really wanted to lock you in, they would have triangular modules
instead of square...
Or I suppose the vendors like to be able to shop around for modules, before
they relabel and sell them to you at a 10x markup.
They want the ability to buy off the shelf components when they manufacture.
They just don't want you to have the same privilege when you purchase. Your
switches and routers are made of a bunch of OEM components with some custom
programmed ASICS and some secret sauce. If they used non
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014, at 07:02 PM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
It's probably fine in a pure DC environment with few locations and only
one SFP+ type, but it's rapidly a total mess when you have to manage 40
channels for 3 module types over dozens of locations AND the added
manufacturer specific
Let talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room and the #1 reason to hate
vendor locked optics. Some vendors (yes, Cisco I'm looking at you) want to
charge ridiculously high prices for optic that are identical to generic optics
other than the vendor lock. Maybe a better tactic would be to
...@medline.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 1:20:09 PM
Subject: RE: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
Let talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room and the #1 reason to hate
vendor locked optics. Some vendors (yes, Cisco I'm looking at you) want to
charge
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
I'm having a discussion with Arista, trying to explain to them why I
_can't_ buy any hardware unable to run with compatible optical modules.
Hi Jérôme,
Change can't to won't, because you find it inconvenient and insulting
Le 17/11/2014 19:28, Faisal Imtiaz a écrit :
If history has any advice to offer, it would be, if you are not
dependent on warranty or support issues from the Vendor, then go
forward, do what you please, ..
Well, I could go on and re-code the optics, at least by simply cloning a
few OEMs.
You say lock in, they say loyalty
Tell them loyalty is two ways, and you need them to help you remain a loyal
customer. To start with, a fantastic CLA. Make sure it includes 15 minute new
optics delivery in case of failure (since you can't keep spares on-site as they
are too expensive.)
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
Le 17/11/2014 19:54, William Herrin a écrit :
Change can't to won't, because you find it inconvenient and
insulting to work around artificial and costly problems created by
your vendor. If you can't use their equipment
I've asked the same question and got the answer that there is a REAL BIG
chip manufacture that was having huge system issue and told the vendor that
they were going to rip out all the manufactures routing / switching
equipment if they didn't get it fixed.
after the manufacture send engineering
At 02:49 PM 17/11/2014, Scott Voll wrote:
I've asked the same question and got the answer that there is a REAL BIG
chip manufacture that was having huge system issue and told the vendor that
they were going to rip out all the manufactures routing / switching
equipment if they didn't get it
That is their most popular argument. However this is no different from putting
a NIC card. RAM, or hard drives in a server platform. For that matter, do you
blame the network vendor if you have a faulty optical cable? In your example,
can you be sure that the SFP was the issue? You can't be
there's a reason why cisco introduced service unsupported-transceiver,
which still remains an undocumented command. i have arista gear as well.
kinda wish they had a similar undocumented command.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
What are other arguments against vendor lock-in ? Is there any argument
FOR such locks (please spare me the support issues, if you can't read
specs and SNMP, you shouldn't even try networking) ?
Did you ever experience a shift in a vendor's position
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Is it unrealistic to hope for enough salesmen pressure on the corporate
ladder to make such moronic attitude be reversed in the short term ?
No salesperson is likely to do that for you. They know only to well that
eliminating vendor lock-in means
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:50 -0500, Justin M. Streiner said:
No salesperson is likely to do that for you. They know only to well that
eliminating vendor lock-in means they will lose sales on artificially
costly optics from $vendor to a lower-cost rival. Less sales = less
commission for
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:34:50 -0500, Justin M. Streiner said:
No salesperson is likely to do that for you. They know only to well that
eliminating vendor lock-in means they will lose sales on artificially
costly optics from $vendor to a
On 17/11/2014 18:11, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
What are other arguments against vendor lock-in ? Is there any argument
FOR such locks (please spare me the support issues, if you can't read
specs and SNMP, you shouldn't even try networking) ?
there have been documented cases in the past where
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
Let talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room and the #1 reason to
hate vendor locked optics. Some vendors (yes, Cisco I'm looking at you)
want to charge ridiculously high prices for optic that are identical to
generic optics other than the
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, ryanL ryan.lan...@gmail.com wrote:
there's a reason why cisco introduced service unsupported-transceiver,
which still remains an undocumented command. i have arista gear as well.
kinda wish they had a similar undocumented command.
Arista does have it (at
Le 17/11/2014 21:09, ryanL a écrit :
kinda wish they had a similar undocumented command.
Well, there is a command, and you can automate it's application.
See https://gist.github.com/agh/932bbd1f74d312573925 .
Can't tell if DOM is supported on 3rd party.
--
Jérôme Nicolle
+33 6 19 31 27 14
This is an interesting thread, but the actual winning strategy was only
tangentially mentioned.
Q: How do you get a vendor to change?
A: Everyone stop buying that vendor's gear.
It's a simple business decision. If the profit dollars of the people who stick
around with locked
Hello Patrick,
Le 18/11/2014 00:17, Patrick W. Gilmore a écrit :
You like Arista for price, density, etc.? Then factor in the cost
(OpEx CapEx) of vendor-specific optics and see if they still make
sense. Don't just look at the per-port cost of the blade. See, it's a
simple business decision
Our experience using that command has been mixed enough to be unreliable for
production. Problems include error disabled interfaces refusing to come back
online and the command not surviving a power cycle. Use with caution.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
On Nov 17, 2014, at 2:11 PM, ryanL
28 matches
Mail list logo
