Check out the White Papar referenced .... http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/pdfs/Why_Cisco_Not_Juniper.pdf
It has Cisco's usual White Paper format and their copyright stamped on the bottom which is also dates "9/11". If it's not Cisco or one of it's affiliates, I would expect them to be contacting their so called "Marketing" folks anytime now. If this really is Cisco .... i'm with Owen and expect a presidential bid announcement any second now .... Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) - Max On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > > One: > > Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do > not > > look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo > all > > over the site. > > Another: > > Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy. My first thought was a > > disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee. Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in > > its cartoon strips all those years. Payback??? > > I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and > who > has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it. > Cisco > marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what > ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy > and > rackspace. > Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our > competitors > networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will > the > pages be hosted. > > > -- > ++ytti > >