Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
Howard, Just a thought... I found your new book (WAN Survival Guide) on various book sites but it was no where to be found on CZ. Any idea as to when it will be at the Shopping Zone? Nigel. - Original Message - From: Howard C. Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:37 PM Subject: Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? > >At 12:10 PM 12/3/00, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > > >>When we are talking about futures, the reality is that we truly > >>don't know. To say that carrier-scale backbones will be ATM > >>(probably not), POS, IP over raw DWDM, MPLS over raw DWDM, etc., is > >>not yet a given. > > > >Thanks for turning this into a logical, well-written discussion > >instead of a harangue, Howard. > > > >Probably not ATM for carrier-scale backbones? Is it because MPLS is > >looking like a better model? I realize I'm asking you to look into > >your crystal ball, and that's always hard, but I'm interested in the > >technical reasons off the cuff. (I know it could require a whole > >book to give a true answer! &;-) > > Well, I just wrote one, although I don't think there is a firm > consensus as yet on what will win. Shameless plug: _WAN Survival > Guide_, ISBN 0-471-3428-3 (Wiley). Published just in time for the > Christmas rush. :-) > > But yes, I believe MPLS is a superior model to ATM. Lots of people > call it "ATM without cells," removing the problem of the cell tax. > > MPLS does not replace IP, but is an "overdrive" for IP. The biggest > confusion about MPLS, which I found in a number of Cisco > presentations, is that MPLS is far more than the label-switched paths > themselves. These paths need to be set up by routing mechanisms. > > When I say routing mechanism, I include both dynamic IP routing > protocols and extensions for traffic engineering. RSVP-TE, LDP, and > CR-LDP don't replace routing, but distribute label switching > information that is based on routing (including traffic engineering > overrides to routing). > > Many of the "optical routing" discussions really aren't talking about > something radically different, but, for example, identifying a path > by lambda rather than explicit label. > > > > >Priscilla > > > >>We face challenges such as "is it better to have single 40 Gbps > >>OC-768 streams or multiple OC-192 over DWDM?" There are many > >>routing versus switching arguments, and MPLS is a mixture of the > >>two (even though there's intense religion about LDP, RSVP-TE, and > >>CR-LDP). We don't know the situations in which photonic switching > >>of lambdas is enough, versus photonic routing of individual > >>packets. Lots of things we don't know. > >> > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
i suppose that an underlying assumption of mine was that microsoft's market is non-competitive AND cisco has a chance of breaking into the carrier market BECAUSE both companies are leaders in terms of directional flexibility. do you see it differently? as for hsrp, even if it is functionally identical, their claim about standards is STILL misleading (in a sense that has misdirected many, many it budgets). in some cases where they have an approach which predates a standard, they will arrange for IOS to use either, or, they will interoperate/exchange information with non-cisco implementations or, as in the case of hsrp, they don't provide support for vrrp unfortunately, standards compliance seems to be an area where linguistic precision is absolutely vital. "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 12/03/2000 04:29:53 PM Please respond to "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) Subject: Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? >Disclosure: i work with equipment manufactured by both nortel & cisco (or >companies they assimilated) and make every effort to be equally unfair to >both. > >thanks for the clarification about PIM, i was unaware of those >circumstances. in the original list i forgot hsrp, which-i'm told-falls >under the "no existing standard at the time it was introduced" category (of >course, it also falls under the "the eventual standard that emerged is >different" category). HSRP has significant ancestry in DEC's cluster protocols. The IETF's VRRP protocol is functionally almost identical to HSRP. > >as best i can tell, one remaining point merits explicit clarification (no >matter how against my nature that might be) > >you point out that we do not know enough about the future to adequately >answer the original question, but that potentially obscures the fact that, >like microsoft, cisco is a world-class leader in abrupt directional shifts >(presumably, the only useful context for the abomination "internet time"), >so insider knowledge about their long term direction at any given point in >space & time might not be of much use 12 months hence. i also suspect that >you are correct about them hedging their bets somewhat, so that it would be >incorrect to presume that they are focusing on one potential implementation >of a given technology to the exclusion of all others. Intuitively, I think there are important differences, at least in part, for the market of Microsoft and Cisco. The argument is not as strong in the enterprise networking as the carrier networking space. In carrier networking, however, the "customers" themselves push the technologies and may very well introduce approaches of their own. Even more importantly, carriers have a century or so of using standards-based approaches whenever possible. It's informative to look at how well Juniper has competed with Cisco in the carrier router space, in part because they don't have the baggage of the legacy mechanisms IOS needs to support. Also, Nortel's installed base in optical networking is far greater than Cisco's. I suppose my point is that the carrier market is much more competitive than the enterprise networking market, which in turn is more competitive than the market that Microsoft inhabits. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-+ | This message may contain confidential and/or privileged | | information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to | | receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, | | disclose or take any action based on this message or any| | information herein. If you have received this message in | | error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail | | and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. | +-+ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
>At 12:10 PM 12/3/00, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > >>When we are talking about futures, the reality is that we truly >>don't know. To say that carrier-scale backbones will be ATM >>(probably not), POS, IP over raw DWDM, MPLS over raw DWDM, etc., is >>not yet a given. > >Thanks for turning this into a logical, well-written discussion >instead of a harangue, Howard. > >Probably not ATM for carrier-scale backbones? Is it because MPLS is >looking like a better model? I realize I'm asking you to look into >your crystal ball, and that's always hard, but I'm interested in the >technical reasons off the cuff. (I know it could require a whole >book to give a true answer! &;-) Well, I just wrote one, although I don't think there is a firm consensus as yet on what will win. Shameless plug: _WAN Survival Guide_, ISBN 0-471-3428-3 (Wiley). Published just in time for the Christmas rush. :-) But yes, I believe MPLS is a superior model to ATM. Lots of people call it "ATM without cells," removing the problem of the cell tax. MPLS does not replace IP, but is an "overdrive" for IP. The biggest confusion about MPLS, which I found in a number of Cisco presentations, is that MPLS is far more than the label-switched paths themselves. These paths need to be set up by routing mechanisms. When I say routing mechanism, I include both dynamic IP routing protocols and extensions for traffic engineering. RSVP-TE, LDP, and CR-LDP don't replace routing, but distribute label switching information that is based on routing (including traffic engineering overrides to routing). Many of the "optical routing" discussions really aren't talking about something radically different, but, for example, identifying a path by lambda rather than explicit label. > >Priscilla > >>We face challenges such as "is it better to have single 40 Gbps >>OC-768 streams or multiple OC-192 over DWDM?" There are many >>routing versus switching arguments, and MPLS is a mixture of the >>two (even though there's intense religion about LDP, RSVP-TE, and >>CR-LDP). We don't know the situations in which photonic switching >>of lambdas is enough, versus photonic routing of individual >>packets. Lots of things we don't know. >> _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
>Disclosure: i work with equipment manufactured by both nortel & cisco (or >companies they assimilated) and make every effort to be equally unfair to >both. > >thanks for the clarification about PIM, i was unaware of those >circumstances. in the original list i forgot hsrp, which-i'm told-falls >under the "no existing standard at the time it was introduced" category (of >course, it also falls under the "the eventual standard that emerged is >different" category). HSRP has significant ancestry in DEC's cluster protocols. The IETF's VRRP protocol is functionally almost identical to HSRP. > >as best i can tell, one remaining point merits explicit clarification (no >matter how against my nature that might be) > >you point out that we do not know enough about the future to adequately >answer the original question, but that potentially obscures the fact that, >like microsoft, cisco is a world-class leader in abrupt directional shifts >(presumably, the only useful context for the abomination "internet time"), >so insider knowledge about their long term direction at any given point in >space & time might not be of much use 12 months hence. i also suspect that >you are correct about them hedging their bets somewhat, so that it would be >incorrect to presume that they are focusing on one potential implementation >of a given technology to the exclusion of all others. Intuitively, I think there are important differences, at least in part, for the market of Microsoft and Cisco. The argument is not as strong in the enterprise networking as the carrier networking space. In carrier networking, however, the "customers" themselves push the technologies and may very well introduce approaches of their own. Even more importantly, carriers have a century or so of using standards-based approaches whenever possible. It's informative to look at how well Juniper has competed with Cisco in the carrier router space, in part because they don't have the baggage of the legacy mechanisms IOS needs to support. Also, Nortel's installed base in optical networking is far greater than Cisco's. I suppose my point is that the carrier market is much more competitive than the enterprise networking market, which in turn is more competitive than the market that Microsoft inhabits. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
Disclosure: i work with equipment manufactured by both nortel & cisco (or companies they assimilated) and make every effort to be equally unfair to both. thanks for the clarification about PIM, i was unaware of those circumstances. in the original list i forgot hsrp, which-i'm told-falls under the "no existing standard at the time it was introduced" category (of course, it also falls under the "the eventual standard that emerged is different" category). as best i can tell, one remaining point merits explicit clarification (no matter how against my nature that might be) you point out that we do not know enough about the future to adequately answer the original question, but that potentially obscures the fact that, like microsoft, cisco is a world-class leader in abrupt directional shifts (presumably, the only useful context for the abomination "internet time"), so insider knowledge about their long term direction at any given point in space & time might not be of much use 12 months hence. i also suspect that you are correct about them hedging their bets somewhat, so that it would be incorrect to presume that they are focusing on one potential implementation of a given technology to the exclusion of all others. "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 12/03/2000 12:10:48 PM Please respond to "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) Subject: Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, Disclosures: I'm a Nortel employee working in new router design, and a Cisco stockholder. That said, some of these points might be a bit harsh on Cisco. >agnostic might be too strong a term to lavish upon a company that preaches >"open standards" at prospective customers (such as isl, pim, cgmp, igrp, >eigrp,their layer 2 hdlc & the rest-meaning, anything they developed in >isolation and imposed, or are waiting to impose, upon the rest of the >ip-vulnerable community). No question that Cisco will try to establish proprietary methods, but they are legitimate standards players. The standards-based version of many of the protocols you cite came after Cisco, or someone else, first introducted its functionality in some proprietary way: ISL: Cisco actually introduced a VLAN concept with an interpretation of IEEE 802.10, but for assorted reasons, some technical and some political/marketing, that never caught on. 802.1Q was developed after ISL, and 802.1Q is being enhanced by IEEE to have some capabilities that are in ISL but not the base standard. HDLC: At the time Cisco introduced this, PPP wasn't defined yet. PPP itself represents compromises based on the chip implementations readily available at the time of its introduction. LAP-B existed but had much more overhead. Several other vendors had similar proprietary variants of HDLC, including Codex/Motorola and Timeplex. PIM: Came out of the research community with Cisco participation. Never was proprietary, AFAIK. CGMP: Definitely proprietary, although IEEE is considering things with some of its functions. CGMP reflects a different design approach than IGMP snooping on switches IGRP: The alternative was RIP at the time. Several people said that Cisco tried to put IGRP into the IETF, but other vendors didn't want it because Cisco had too much of an advantage, and the current design thinking was link state. EIGRP: Definitely a proprietary approach, but DUAL itself was invented at Stanford Research Institute. EIGRP does reflect some very serious thinking about enhanced distance vector being superior to link state. OSPF and ISIS still are evolving. >while i'm quite certain that they will attempt to >assimilate any commercially non-trivial communication standard into their >operating systems, i'm concerned that it's not a legitimate question to ask >about a single direction they might stumble along for both the backbone and >the lan, since they will obviously follow the divergent trends in each >market, no matter the implications for their current technological >investments (btw: there exists a non-zero chance that the technologies in >both spaces will converge. in that unlikely event, i'm more than certain >that cisco won't hesitate in cannibalizing one division to capitalize on >the other) . .. . When we are talking about futures, the reality is that we truly don't know. To say that carrier-scale backbones will be ATM (probably not), POS, IP over raw DWDM, MPLS over raw DWDM, etc., is not yet a given. We face challe
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
At 12:10 PM 12/3/00, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >When we are talking about futures, the reality is that we truly don't >know. To say that carrier-scale backbones will be ATM (probably not), POS, >IP over raw DWDM, MPLS over raw DWDM, etc., is not yet a given. Thanks for turning this into a logical, well-written discussion instead of a harangue, Howard. Probably not ATM for carrier-scale backbones? Is it because MPLS is looking like a better model? I realize I'm asking you to look into your crystal ball, and that's always hard, but I'm interested in the technical reasons off the cuff. (I know it could require a whole book to give a true answer! &;-) Priscilla >We face challenges such as "is it better to have single 40 Gbps OC-768 >streams or multiple OC-192 over DWDM?" There are many routing versus >switching arguments, and MPLS is a mixture of the two (even though there's >intense religion about LDP, RSVP-TE, and CR-LDP). We don't know the >situations in which photonic switching of lambdas is enough, versus >photonic routing of individual packets. Lots of things we don't know. > Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
At 11:43 PM 12/2/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >agnostic might be too strong a term to lavish upon a company that preaches >"open standards" It's Cisco's word, not mine. They've been using it for years, including the years that I worked there and today. It means they support open standards and have no religion regarding one technology being better than an other. IGRP isn't open, but it's an exception. Priscilla >at prospective customers (such as isl, pim, cgmp, igrp, >eigrp,their layer 2 hdlc & the rest-meaning, anything they developed in >isolation and imposed, or are waiting to impose, upon the rest of the >ip-vulnerable community). while i'm quite certain that they will attempt to >assimilate any commercially non-trivial communication standard into their >operating systems, i'm concerned that it's not a legitimate question to ask >about a single direction they might stumble along for both the backbone and >the lan, since they will obviously follow the divergent trends in each >market, no matter the implications for their current technological >investments (btw: there exists a non-zero chance that the technologies in >both spaces will converge. in that unlikely event, i'm more than certain >that cisco won't hesitate in cannibalizing one division to capitalize on >the other) . .. . > >anyway, if you're truly concerned about anticipating their future, please >understand that it has less to do with their current product set as we all >understand it and far more to do with how they anticipate they might >eviscerate their competitors and conquer markets that they have yet to >redefine. my assumption all along was that they were not willing to play >the nortel game of consolidating their wan and lan technologies (as alluded >to in the previous paragraph) but they might yet prove to be the microsloth >of the data communications space (nota bene: they've already made >considerable progress in this venture). > >a not-completely-insipid rule of thumb might be to assume that cisco is >actively plotting to invade any data-communications technology space that >either has market share or a company hawking its wares at a suffciently >alluring stock price. > >(please note that it remains somewhat insipid . . . thanks) > > > > > > > >Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 12/02/2000 >04:45:39 PM > >Please respond to Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: "cslx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) >Subject: Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? > > >Cisco is agnostic with regards to technology and protocols. Cisco attempts >to implement almost all viable protocols. That's their philosophy. So >you'll see them implement solutions for customers who want ATM and >solutions for customers who want SONET in the backbone. > >With that said, if your question is about ATM on a campus network, we heard >recently that they are removing LAN Emulation (LANE) from the CCIE test, so >that may say something about their direction, or I could be reading too >much into that decision. > >Priscilla > >At 07:24 AM 12/2/00, cslx wrote: > >anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? > >I want to know which field cisco want focus on in the next decade. > >IP over ATM switch at the backbone > >or IP over sonet at the backbone > >that means for the man or campus network, which one is cisco's prefer >choice > >or has the priority? > >any1 can foresee the furture of ATM in china, and will it be replaced by > >using total ip switching over backbone sonet transwmission? > >I am seriously asking this question. > > > > > >_ > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >Priscilla Oppenheimer >http://www.priscilla.com > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >+-+ >| This message may contain confidential and/or privileged | >| information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to | >| receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, | >| disclose or take any action based on this message or any| >| information herein. If you have received this message in | >| error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail | >| and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. | >+-+ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, Disclosures: I'm a Nortel employee working in new router design, and a Cisco stockholder. That said, some of these points might be a bit harsh on Cisco. >agnostic might be too strong a term to lavish upon a company that preaches >"open standards" at prospective customers (such as isl, pim, cgmp, igrp, >eigrp,their layer 2 hdlc & the rest-meaning, anything they developed in >isolation and imposed, or are waiting to impose, upon the rest of the >ip-vulnerable community). No question that Cisco will try to establish proprietary methods, but they are legitimate standards players. The standards-based version of many of the protocols you cite came after Cisco, or someone else, first introducted its functionality in some proprietary way: ISL: Cisco actually introduced a VLAN concept with an interpretation of IEEE 802.10, but for assorted reasons, some technical and some political/marketing, that never caught on. 802.1Q was developed after ISL, and 802.1Q is being enhanced by IEEE to have some capabilities that are in ISL but not the base standard. HDLC: At the time Cisco introduced this, PPP wasn't defined yet. PPP itself represents compromises based on the chip implementations readily available at the time of its introduction. LAP-B existed but had much more overhead. Several other vendors had similar proprietary variants of HDLC, including Codex/Motorola and Timeplex. PIM: Came out of the research community with Cisco participation. Never was proprietary, AFAIK. CGMP: Definitely proprietary, although IEEE is considering things with some of its functions. CGMP reflects a different design approach than IGMP snooping on switches IGRP: The alternative was RIP at the time. Several people said that Cisco tried to put IGRP into the IETF, but other vendors didn't want it because Cisco had too much of an advantage, and the current design thinking was link state. EIGRP: Definitely a proprietary approach, but DUAL itself was invented at Stanford Research Institute. EIGRP does reflect some very serious thinking about enhanced distance vector being superior to link state. OSPF and ISIS still are evolving. >while i'm quite certain that they will attempt to >assimilate any commercially non-trivial communication standard into their >operating systems, i'm concerned that it's not a legitimate question to ask >about a single direction they might stumble along for both the backbone and >the lan, since they will obviously follow the divergent trends in each >market, no matter the implications for their current technological >investments (btw: there exists a non-zero chance that the technologies in >both spaces will converge. in that unlikely event, i'm more than certain >that cisco won't hesitate in cannibalizing one division to capitalize on >the other) . .. . When we are talking about futures, the reality is that we truly don't know. To say that carrier-scale backbones will be ATM (probably not), POS, IP over raw DWDM, MPLS over raw DWDM, etc., is not yet a given. We face challenges such as "is it better to have single 40 Gbps OC-768 streams or multiple OC-192 over DWDM?" There are many routing versus switching arguments, and MPLS is a mixture of the two (even though there's intense religion about LDP, RSVP-TE, and CR-LDP). We don't know the situations in which photonic switching of lambdas is enough, versus photonic routing of individual packets. Lots of things we don't know. I feel fairly comfortable about the lower speeds in the carrier area, such as 1 and 10 Gbps. But Cisco, Nortel, and everyone else other than focused startups have to hedge their bets. > >anyway, if you're truly concerned about anticipating their future, please >understand that it has less to do with their current product set as we all >understand it and far more to do with how they anticipate they might >eviscerate their competitors and conquer markets that they have yet to >redefine. my assumption all along was that they were not willing to play >the nortel game of consolidating their wan and lan technologies (as alluded >to in the previous paragraph) but they might yet prove to be the microsloth >of the data communications space (nota bene: they've already made >considerable progress in this venture). > > > >To: "cslx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) >Subject: Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? > > >Cisco is agnostic with regards to technology and protocols. Cisco attempts >to implement almost all
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
agnostic might be too strong a term to lavish upon a company that preaches "open standards" at prospective customers (such as isl, pim, cgmp, igrp, eigrp,their layer 2 hdlc & the rest-meaning, anything they developed in isolation and imposed, or are waiting to impose, upon the rest of the ip-vulnerable community). while i'm quite certain that they will attempt to assimilate any commercially non-trivial communication standard into their operating systems, i'm concerned that it's not a legitimate question to ask about a single direction they might stumble along for both the backbone and the lan, since they will obviously follow the divergent trends in each market, no matter the implications for their current technological investments (btw: there exists a non-zero chance that the technologies in both spaces will converge. in that unlikely event, i'm more than certain that cisco won't hesitate in cannibalizing one division to capitalize on the other) . .. . anyway, if you're truly concerned about anticipating their future, please understand that it has less to do with their current product set as we all understand it and far more to do with how they anticipate they might eviscerate their competitors and conquer markets that they have yet to redefine. my assumption all along was that they were not willing to play the nortel game of consolidating their wan and lan technologies (as alluded to in the previous paragraph) but they might yet prove to be the microsloth of the data communications space (nota bene: they've already made considerable progress in this venture). a not-completely-insipid rule of thumb might be to assume that cisco is actively plotting to invade any data-communications technology space that either has market share or a company hawking its wares at a suffciently alluring stock price. (please note that it remains somewhat insipid . . . thanks) Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on 12/02/2000 04:45:39 PM Please respond to Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "cslx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) Subject: Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? Cisco is agnostic with regards to technology and protocols. Cisco attempts to implement almost all viable protocols. That's their philosophy. So you'll see them implement solutions for customers who want ATM and solutions for customers who want SONET in the backbone. With that said, if your question is about ATM on a campus network, we heard recently that they are removing LAN Emulation (LANE) from the CCIE test, so that may say something about their direction, or I could be reading too much into that decision. Priscilla At 07:24 AM 12/2/00, cslx wrote: >anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? >I want to know which field cisco want focus on in the next decade. >IP over ATM switch at the backbone >or IP over sonet at the backbone >that means for the man or campus network, which one is cisco's prefer choice >or has the priority? >any1 can foresee the furture of ATM in china, and will it be replaced by >using total ip switching over backbone sonet transwmission? >I am seriously asking this question. > > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-+ | This message may contain confidential and/or privileged | | information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to | | receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, | | disclose or take any action based on this message or any| | information herein. If you have received this message in | | error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail | | and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. | +-+ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
With the diversification of the CCIE Program they simply might be going to include a CCIE - Campus in the future ;) Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > Cisco is agnostic with regards to technology and protocols. Cisco attempts > to implement almost all viable protocols. That's their philosophy. So > you'll see them implement solutions for customers who want ATM and > solutions for customers who want SONET in the backbone. > > With that said, if your question is about ATM on a campus network, we heard > recently that they are removing LAN Emulation (LANE) from the CCIE test, so > that may say something about their direction, or I could be reading too > much into that decision. > > Priscilla > > At 07:24 AM 12/2/00, cslx wrote: > >anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? > >I want to know which field cisco want focus on in the next decade. > >IP over ATM switch at the backbone > >or IP over sonet at the backbone > >that means for the man or campus network, which one is cisco's prefer choice > >or has the priority? > >any1 can foresee the furture of ATM in china, and will it be replaced by > >using total ip switching over backbone sonet transwmission? > >I am seriously asking this question. > > > > > >_ > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
Cisco is agnostic with regards to technology and protocols. Cisco attempts to implement almost all viable protocols. That's their philosophy. So you'll see them implement solutions for customers who want ATM and solutions for customers who want SONET in the backbone. With that said, if your question is about ATM on a campus network, we heard recently that they are removing LAN Emulation (LANE) from the CCIE test, so that may say something about their direction, or I could be reading too much into that decision. Priscilla At 07:24 AM 12/2/00, cslx wrote: >anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? >I want to know which field cisco want focus on in the next decade. >IP over ATM switch at the backbone >or IP over sonet at the backbone >that means for the man or campus network, which one is cisco's prefer choice >or has the priority? >any1 can foresee the furture of ATM in china, and will it be replaced by >using total ip switching over backbone sonet transwmission? >I am seriously asking this question. > > >_ >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people?
anyone has had any contacts with cisco R&D people? I want to know which field cisco want focus on in the next decade. IP over ATM switch at the backbone or IP over sonet at the backbone that means for the man or campus network, which one is cisco's prefer choice or has the priority? any1 can foresee the furture of ATM in china, and will it be replaced by using total ip switching over backbone sonet transwmission? I am seriously asking this question. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Contacts
I am not yet a CCIE but working on it. I work with several here in Hampshire. If you like I can forward your request to them. Let me know Regards, Ben --- era <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My name is Ross Sloman and I'm working on my CCIE at present. I > wondered if there were any UK-based CCIEs that may be able to offer > me advice. I am based in Slough, Berkshire and I interested to hear > about how those that are certified have progressed in their careers. > Best regards, > Ross Sloman > 07940 560880 > = Ben Lovegrove, CCNP Redspan Solutions Ltd Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.redspan.com Forum: http://www.delphi.com/talknet/start/ Cisco Products, Internet Services, E-Commerce Software, URL Submissions Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contacts
My name is Ross Sloman and I'm working on my CCIE at present. I wondered if there were any UK-based CCIEs that may be able to offer me advice. I am based in Slough, Berkshire and I interested to hear about how those that are certified have progressed in their careers. Best regards, Ross Sloman 07940 560880
