http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
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
On 14/09/2011 11:42, Martin Hepworth wrote:
http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
Wow, classy.
Nick
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
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 ?
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
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
On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
One can do that with or without NAT. This claim that one cannot
keep a network running without a service provider connected if you
don't run NAT is a myth of dubious origin.
If the hosts are running DHCP, and the ISP is running the DHCP
-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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Ted Cooper
ml-nanog0903...@elcsplace.com wrote:
As claimed by the DigiNotar hacker - He compromised their servers but
Eddy was manually approving certs at the time and so no certs were signed.
There was information about it on the site, but it seems to be
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,
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
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,
-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
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
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
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:
http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/
amazingly professional. not.
but lead contestant for pathetic jealousy post of the year
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..
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
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
The problem that I see with browser response to self-signed (or org generated)
certs is
not the warning(s) but the assertion that the cert is invalid. Not issued by
one of the
players in the Protection Racket does not make the cert invalid. It may be
untrustable,
unreliable, from an unknown
And to end this thread as this effectively ends Diginotar troubles for
the Interwebz:
Dutch official statement:
http://www.opta.nl/nl/actueel/alle-publicaties/publicatie/?id=3469
English Summary OPTA revokes Diginotar License as TTP:
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 19:16 +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
And to end this thread as this effectively ends Diginotar troubles for
the Interwebz:
Dutch official statement:
http://www.opta.nl/nl/actueel/alle-publicaties/publicatie/?id=3469
Bedankt. Vertaling (my own translation, niet slecht
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
--- 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
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.
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
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
My apologies; I was just too damned tired to do this last night, by which
time I had gotten my answer: $17 for a 5 way blend based on L3 and GBLX, in
Tampa, isn't really all that bad. (100mbs commit; GigE fiber redundant)
City PipeCommitCarrier(s) $/mbs
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
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?
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
