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: greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca > To: brandon....@brandontek.com > CC: khomyakov.and...@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org > 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: khomyakov.and...@gmail.com > >> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:36 -0500 > >> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? > >> To: nanog@nanog.org > >> > >> 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 > >> <greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca>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 > >> [khomyakov.and...@gmail.com] > > > > > -- > > 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.
