Josh,
Totally where I was headed with your examples, I just didn't want to get
too deep into it.
Recently I've been testing Cisco's UCS platform. They hype it all as
"open standards" because it's x86... But just wait until they start
infesting your environment with their custom vSwitches that have an
all-new method of tagging frames in a Cisco-friendly way! 802.1q is not
enough for Cisco... they need /more/! (FYI -- Cisco UCS is their
"unified computing system", it's an x86 server blade platform not a
telephony solution.)
I find it bitterly ironic that Cisco is seemingly not even hiding what
they are trying to do anymore. UCS. Unified computing? Oh sure, it's
/unified /alright... Unified in the sense of the unity of your future
interoperability options.
-- Robert
On 4/22/2010 6:49 PM, Josh Patten wrote:
+1
Look at SCCP, CDP, Pre-standard PoE, etc. etc. etc.
This is why I avoid proprietary hardware: it never fails to cause
problems later because you're stuck with it and you either shell out
for all new stuff or keep running on the planned obsolescence/upgrade
hamster wheel. Case in point: Nortel's forced upgrade plan for their
Meridian systems (Pre-Avaya). An example of this I am personally
affected by is in order to purchase more licenses on an older Meridian
software release (Option 11c hardware purchased in 2005 but software
downgraded to R3 to support connection to legacy Meridian Mail on a
separate Option 61c). When we inquired about purchasing an additional
20-30 licenses for an expansion of a department we were told, "no you
must upgrade to a CS1000 platform with Call Pilot. Give us $70,000
please to replace all the backend hardware and add some line cards and
20 phones." I then came in and showed them how they could get a brand
new (sipX) system and replace all phones with open standards based
phones (polycom) that don't care about what backend you run for the
same price as the CS1000 upgrade PLUS have a number of features that
their current system could not provide. It was a no brainer, they
chose the latter.
I think a lot of companies that originally bought into the Cisco VoIP
craze back in 2004-2006 are wishing they would have done something
else because now they're stuck and the prices keep going up. I know of
a few companies/organizations that have moved the backend from
CallManager to Asterisk and kept the phones simply because Asterisk
has a decent SCCP implementation that allows for full function from
the phones. Cisco phones SIP implementation, on the other hand, is
very half-baked and while they may have some portion of the IETF SIP
standards correctly implemented it is a very SMALL portion.
I really do feel sorry for those that got suckered into the likes of
Shortel and various other proprietary platforms. They truly are stuck.
Robert B wrote:
Scott,
That's putting it quite diplomatically. Here's how I'd say it...
Cisco infects... They take emerging standards, dump millions into making
their own version of it, wait for everyone else to use an open standard,
do a half-assed implementation of said open standard in their own
product, then use that as a wedge to sell more of their proprietary
stack -- which of course works better on their own kit.
I have no reason to think that their SIP implementation is anything
other than that.
-- Robert
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list [email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
