Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61

[Glenn Kelley <glenn () vinehosting com>]

I would agree w/ the HP vs. Cisco comment from Greg Whynott 

Cisco has refused to help without a huge pricetag in the past. 
We have migrated many of our customers off of Cisco gear to mitigate future issues for exactly this reason.

HP is a great partner!    

If you need a router check out vYatta or pfSense -   pfSense for the low end of course. - Both are open - Both have 
paid support and we are very happy with them.

Glenn


On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:52 PM, nanog-request () nanog org wrote:

> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
>       nanog () nanog org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       nanog-request () nanog org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       nanog-owner () nanog org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Brandon Kim)
>   2. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Thomas Donnelly)
>   3. Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you? (Greg Whynott)
>   4. Re: Satellite IP (Jay Ashworth)
>   5. Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
>      (goemon () anime net)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:39:19 -0500
> From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim () brandontek com>
> Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: <greg.whynott () oicr on ca>
> Cc: nanog group <nanog () nanog org>, khomyakov.andrey () gmail com
> Message-ID: <BLU158-w56696A3677B43628EE789ADC0E0 () phx gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
>
> 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.Whynott () oicr on ca
> > To: brandon.kim () brandontek com
> > CC: khomyakov.andrey () 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.andrey () 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.Whynott () 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.andrey () 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.
>                                         
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:14:44 -0600
> From: "Thomas Donnelly" <tad1214 () gmail com>
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <op.vo32lwi8wjyiia@osprey>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim  
> <brandon.kim () brandontek com> wrote:
>
> > 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?"
>
> I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an  
> engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying  
> another vendor they raise an eyebrow.
>
> > > From: Greg.Whynott () oicr on ca
> > > To: brandon.kim () brandontek com
> > > CC: khomyakov.andrey () 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.andrey () 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.Whynott () 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.andrey () 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.
> >                                      
>
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:44 -0500
> From: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott () oicr on ca>
> Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
> To: Thomas Donnelly <tad1214 () gmail com>
> Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
> Message-ID: <DF852A5F-04B3-4F96-B1FC-955367976EF6 () oicr on ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> for vendors who we were not getting the goods from,  I've found calling your sales rep much more efficient than 
> anything you can say/ask/beg/threaten the tech on the phone.    Sales guys have the inside numbers to call,  the 
> clout to get things moving as they generate revenue for said vendor.    his pay comes from you,  you pay him,  he 
> works for 2.
>
> -g
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Thomas Donnelly wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:39:19 -0600, Brandon Kim
> > <brandon.kim () brandontek com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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?"
> >
> > I've threatened that one against Juniper and minutes later I had an
> > engineer on the phone. At 3:30am. Funny how once you mention buying
> > another vendor they raise an eyebrow.
> >
> > > > From: Greg.Whynott () oicr on ca
> > > > To: brandon.kim () brandontek com
> > > > CC: khomyakov.andrey () 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.andrey () 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.Whynott () 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.andrey () 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:33:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
> Subject: Re: Satellite IP
> To: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> Message-ID:
>       <18554927.984.1294695210090.JavaMail.root () benjamin baylink com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu>
>
> > > Why the hostility, Valdis?
> >
> > As I said several times - it's not hard to be 98% or 99% sure you can make
> > all your commitments. However, since predicting the future is an inexact
> > science,
> > it's really hard to provide a *100% guarantee* that you'll have enough
> > contended capacity to make all the performance targets even if every
> > single occasional customer shows up at once. As Jay pointed out in his
> > follow-up note, his backup strategy is "scramble around and hope another
> > provider can
> > come through in time", which is OK if you *know* that's your strategy
> > and are OK on it. However, blindly going along with "my usual provider
> > guaranteed 100% availability" is a bad idea.
>
> I don't think Kelly is on his first rodeo, and I know I'm not.
>
> "scramble around" is a bit pejorative as descriptions for my booking 
> strategy go, but everyone has a cranky day every so often, not least me.
>
> :-)
>
> And note that I *also* pointed out that carrier statmuxing on the 
> transport is a valid strategy for capacity elasticity, in that particular
> environment.
>
> > Remember, we're coming out of a solar minimum. ;)
>
> Are we in fact coming out of it yet?  I heard it was getting deeper,
> and that we were looking at a Dalton, if not another Maunder.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:51:26 -0800 (PST)
> From: goemon () anime net
> Subject: Working abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
> To: "'nanog () merit edu'" <nanog () merit edu>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1101101349450.19712 () sasami anime net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Anyone have a WORKING abuse contact for lstn.net / limestonenetworks.com?
>
> I have tried the usual channels (abuse () limestonenetworks com, phone calls, "live chat") with no results.
>
> -Dan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG () nanog org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 36, Issue 61
> *************************************

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part