On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 11:51:56AM +0200, Saku Ytti wrote:
> a) one particular optic had slow i2c, vendor polled it more aggressively than
> it could respond. Vendor polling code didn't handle errors reading from i2c,
> but instead crashed whole linecard control-plane.
> Vendor claimed it's not bug
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 vend
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Justin M. Streiner
> 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 likely to do th
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
vendors.
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 spec
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 standar
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.
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
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" w
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 decis
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 opt
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
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, ryanL 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 least in older code
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 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 tra
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 low
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
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 th
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 re
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.
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
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 fixed.
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 sta
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Jérôme Nicolle 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 then t
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.)
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.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Jérôme Nicolle 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
to work aro
aslund"
> 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 look
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 hav
29 matches
Mail list logo
