nanog mailing list archives
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
From: Ryan Pugatch <rpug () lp0 org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:18:01 -0500
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 specific pain-in-the-ass. -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
So my question is, to Patrick's point, if you factor in the costs of managing this versus the costs of going with someone else who does not lock you in, is it worth it? Insert comment about TCO and ROI here, etc. -- Ryan Pugatch rpug () lp0 org Boston, MA on the web: www.ryanp.com (homepage) www.lp0.org (blog)
Current thread:
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Clayton Zekelman (Nov 17)
- RE: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Naslund, Steve (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules ryanL (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Ken Matlock (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Jérôme Nicolle (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Naslund, Steve (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Jérôme Nicolle (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Ryan Pugatch (Nov 18)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Baldur Norddahl (Nov 18)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Naslund, Steve (Nov 18)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Richard Hesse (Nov 25)