On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:10:16PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do
come out with a way to do things first which then become a standard
that they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
Yes, and then they keep
From my experience - A key thing to consider from any vendor is their
support - Cisco has great support and a large support organization. I've
seen them turn around complex problems very rapidly for their customers.
Additionally, someone already mentioned investment protection and that Cisco
with OSPF or RIPv2.
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:18:00 -0500
From: c...@wpi.edu
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:10:16PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do
come out
- Original Message -
From: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:10:16PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com
To: c...@wpi.edu; nanog group nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:46 AM
Subject: RE: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
For ISL, I know they are trying to phase that out. For the exams
On 1/13/2011 8:46 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
For ISL, I know they are trying to phase that out. For the exams, they are
based on dot1q.
Even if I had all cisco equipment, I'd try to go with standards because you
never know down the road where you may
need to use another vendor.
I wouldn't
Once upon a time, Michael Ruiz mr...@lstfinancial.com said:
I like Cisco personally and they are cheaper than
buying a Juniper. For example a M-series is always going to cost some
bucks after you factor the FPC and the PICS that need to be loaded.
We didn't find that to be the case, after you
On 1/13/2011 1:35 PM, Michael Ruiz wrote:
For example a M-series is always going to cost some
bucks after you factor the FPC and the PICS that need to be loaded.
I find this usually has to do with the fact that there is no backup to
software processing on a Juniper. Every feature it supports,
tell you a few times where that has saved my bacon a few times and
the commit and check command. :-)
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:41 PM
To: Michael Ruiz
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto
On 1/13/2011 1:48 PM, Michael Ruiz wrote:
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS is the rollback command. Whew
I can tell you a few times where that has saved my bacon a few times and
the commit and check command.:-)
Cisco IOS has a similar feature.
reload in 5
make changes
verify things
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Michael Ruiz wrote:
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS is the rollback command. Whew
I can tell you a few times where that has saved my bacon a few times and
the commit and check command. :-)
Definite +1 for rollback and commit check - and also show | compare
jms
The catch is being able to do it without reloading!
commit confirm will help a lot as well. In case your commit
annihilates your ssh session. ;)
Scott
On 1/13/11 2:51 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/13/2011 1:48 PM, Michael Ruiz wrote:
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS is the rollback
In a message written on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:48:27PM -0600, Michael Ruiz
wrote:
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS is the rollback command. Whew
I can tell you a few times where that has saved my bacon a few times and
the commit and check command. :-)
Cisco marketing seems to have
it does have some JUNOS like feel.
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:58 PM
To: Michael Ruiz
Cc: Jack Bates; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
In a message written on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:48
at one shop were i considered using Juniper instead of a Cisco internet edge
router, the cost of the Juniper was so close to the Cisco it was a non
consideration.The only reason we went with Cisco that time was due to the
fact most of the other gear was Cisco, and it seemed to make more
Cisco IOS has a similar feature.
reload in 5
make changes
verify things are working
reload cancel
There seems to be a better way to do it in IOS that will not reload the router:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t7/feature/guide/gtrollbk.html
I haven't tried it since all my gear
Subway subs started offering toasted as an option in response to the
success of Quiznos Subs.
So many vendors have been chasing the me too feature match behind
Cisco for so many years it interesting to see Cisco doing the same
behind Juniper.
-b
--
Bill Blackford
Network Engineer
Logged
On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/13/2011 1:48 PM, Michael Ruiz wrote:
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS is the rollback command. Whew
I can tell you a few times where that has saved my bacon a few times and
the commit and check command.:-)
Cisco IOS has a
On 1/13/2011 2:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
reload in 5
make changes
verify things are working
reload cancel
It's a little different on a redundant processor system, as you have to reload
both processors. It's also a 2-20 minute outage while you reload, but it does
beat 2 hour drives.
Not
[mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:59 PM
To: Jack Bates
Cc: Michael Ruiz; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On Jan 13, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/13/2011 1:48 PM, Michael Ruiz wrote:
Yeah another thing I love about the JUNOS
Cheers.. to M.A.R.'s related view
On Jan 13, 2011 12:37 PM, Michael Ruiz mr...@lstfinancial.com wrote:
I know where I have worked we have had a mixture of Juniper and Cisco
equipment. Personally buying a Juniper Router like a M or a T series is
like buying a Ferrari. I like Cisco personally and
On 1/13/2011 2:44 PM, Thomas Magill wrote:
Cisco IOS has a similar feature.
reload in 5
make changes
verify things are working
reload cancel
There seems to be a better way to do it in IOS that will not reload the router:
The problem is, it doesn't seem to support an automated rollback
function. You'd need OOB to get access in many cases to do the rollback.
I thought that is what 'configure terminal revert timer x' did. It looks like
you have to do a 'configure confirm' before the revert time expires or it
--- brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
From: Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out
with a way to do things first which then become a standard that
they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Greg Whynott wrote:
Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX)
has their platform built on Brocade devices.
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that
large using Foundry in large deployments..
Probably not as
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large
using Foundry in large deployments..
Foundry/Brocade is used heavily in portions of DoD's research and engineering
community. It is usually preferred where you need high 10Gig port density,
IPv6, and/or sflow.
Is this what everyone is sensing as well? I'm starting to look at Brocade now
just to do some fair comparisons.
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:56:31 +
From: jethro.bi...@strath.ac.uk
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Greg Whynott wrote
On 1/11/11 6:49 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
To be honest, I use smartnet to upgrade the OS. I quit calling TAC after
they failed to understand, much less help me with my eigrp over frame
relay with automatic ISDN backup on route failure and re-establishment
of eigrp over the ISDN. :)
The
On Jan 10, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a
mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about
being a service provider that your
On 1/10/2011 9:31 AM, Brandon Kim wrote:
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all
about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco
based?
Am I limiting myself by thinking that Cisco is the de facto vendor
of choice? I'm not looking for so much fanboy
In my experience it all comes down to Cisco-certified people being
easy to find, and managers not wanting to spend all their time in the
hiring process. So yes, I've generally seen Cisco as the de-facto
choice, but it's rarely been a technical argument that swings the
balance. I'm generally
Our core business is not as a service provider, as in selling services to
others, but we act as a service provider providing services for the various
customers in our internal network that we support.
Our core used to be an all Cisco Core. a few years back the decision was
made to replace this
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all
about being a service provider that your core equipment is Cisco based?
I would not necessarily say that. Granted, most of the places I've worked
are Cisco shops to a large extent,
Cisco shop here that is avidly converting to Juniper.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon@brandontek.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:32 AM
To: nanog group
Subject: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there
We have traditionally been a Cisco shop, but we are starting to move toward
Juniper for much of our needs, and will be recommending Juniper as an
alternative for customers' needs. From a technical point of view, I find the
configurations to be simpler and easier to understand, and I like the
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:31:32 -0600, Brandon Kim
brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
Hello gents:
I wanted to put this out there for all of you. Our network consists of a
mixture of Cisco and Extreme equipment.
Would you say that it's fair to say that if you are serious at all about
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,
Brandon
Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) has
their platform built on Brocade devices.
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large
using Foundry in large deployments..
-g
--
This message and any attachments may
at refreshing our core switches and routers soon so I will
stay objective as much as I can.
=)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:36:24 -0600
CC: brandon@brandontek.com
From: tad1...@gmail.com
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:31:32 -0600
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:
For those that have been Cisco focused, do you stay fully objective,
and are you willing to pitch another vendor knowing that you will have
to learn a new IOS? And that that will be your time that you'll have to
spend to understand the product and
I try to follow the Tolly Group who compares products, and they
continually show that Cisco equipment
is a poor performer in almost any equipment compared to others, I find
that so hard to believe.
Just a rough comment here. Tolly's business model is a sponsored test
one, and Cisco is
as much as I can.
=)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:36:24 -0600
CC: brandon@brandontek.com
From: tad1...@gmail.com
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:31:32 -0600, Brandon Kim
brandon@brandontek.com wrote:
Hello gents:
I
All the places I've worked in the past decade have been all Cisco shops for
routing and switching, with a lot of Cisco use for security too (firewalls
and IDS). Same with my current position, but we're switching to Juniper for
all those product categories. Same or better performance, but 10-20%
On 1/10/2011 11:03 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that large
using Foundry in large deployments..
People (who should know) have told me L3 does for some of their 10GE
bonding. If you want high end at low cost, the box does it.
Cisco and my new Love; Juniper.. for Tier I / Peer
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 1/10/2011 11:03 AM, Greg Whynott wrote:
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that
large using Foundry in large deployments..
People
In article xs4all.61ec3786-5732-4c5a-8938-a15e840dc...@oicr.on.ca you write:
Just as a pointer - one of the largest and most utilized IX (AMS-IX) has
their platform built on Brocade devices.
Brocade device's pre Foundry purchase correct? I can't see anyone that
large using Foundry in large
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,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
pfsense in redundant pair for routing/security/vlan termination
cisco all the way for l2 switching
On 01/10/2011 09:38 AM, James Smith wrote:
All the places I've worked in the past decade have been all Cisco shops for
routing and switching, with a
From: Andrey Khomyakov
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:36 AM
To: nanog group
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
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
Once upon a time, Andrey Khomyakov khomyakov.and...@gmail.com said:
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.
That kind
hope they at least tried their
hardest to support you.
From: khomyakov.and...@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
i think it really depends on who answers your call. I've called Cisco a few
times before for inter vendor issues and they gave us the call the other
vendor finger. .. Other times they saved the day.
i know some shops negotiate their support contract which precludes them from
going
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
: khomyakov.and...@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
@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
an eyebrow.
From: greg.whyn...@oicr.on.ca
To: brandon@brandontek.com
CC: khomyakov.and...@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
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
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
just to play devils advocate..
PVST is Cisco propriety.
I'd rather see vendors default to an open standard as opposed to something
which is closed. the lowest common denominator…
in my eyes the document tells you how to make a cisco and hp switch work
together, not convert.
numbers alone
On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
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
protocol, in which they then become a standard?
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:46:53 -0800
From: se...@rollernet.us
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
HP probably was the most
On 1/10/2011 14:54, Brandon Kim wrote:
To be fair to Cisco and maybe I'm way off here. But it seems they do come out
with a way to do things first which then become a standard that
they have to follow.
ISL/DOT1Q
HSRP/VRRP
etherchannel/LACP
Just some examples. I'm not aware of too
On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
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
: se...@rollernet.us
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?
On 1/10/2011 14:32, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to
solving/providing inter vendor interoperability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aECSsfd4Wk
Watch this video, now, I know that it is essentially advertisement from
brocade but the guy from ams-ix says something very interesting - For
us it is important to have a board-level relationship with the vendor,
no matter who it is. So in the end
on how that is better off-list? It is an
intresting topology.
Do you guys run MPLS internally as your main topology? I was a little confused
on that part
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:17:39 +
From: lorddosk...@gmail.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Is Cisco equpiment de facto
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:17:39 GMT, lorddoskias said:
appropriate treatment in case of emergency. With bigger company this
would be harder, though I think the position account manager is
essential this
Heard someplace, but we've been here ourselves:
We were thrilled to hear they were
66 matches
Mail list logo
