How is it that companies who build their network with expensive name brand
gear often are more successful?
Answer #1: Thats debatable. Do you not recall year 2000. 26 of the largest
29 telecom companies filed for Bankruptcy.
Name brand ment bankrupt. Even for Cisco! Lets not forget who the largest
investor was in Cogent, now Cisco's owned network.
There is some irony here. I'm happy with Cogent. I put my confidence in
Cogent a soley Cisco Name Brand equipment network. Well for my backbone
that is. Even though I religious have chosen a proprietary modification of
Open Source on our local transport network. But Cogent's bankruptcy was
highly due to not being able to afford their own Cisco equipment. So moral
of this story... USe Cisco when someone else pays for it, so they go
bankrupt and not you.
Answer #2: Because people that can afford name brand have capitol and
funding. And logically companies that have adequate capitol and funding
often do better than companies that do not. The missing peice of this
puzzle is.... How well would a company with equivellent funding and capitol
do if they chose Open Source instead? I'd argue they'd be a stunning
success. The only difference is that they would be more likely to invest
more in their employees than in their equipment vendors. Possibly encourage
migratation to an employee owned company, or where the wealth got spread
more evenly between the participants.
I think you missed the boat on this topic. Large companies (well funded and
capitolized) could do well with Open Source, because they are more likely to
reach the economic proportion (growth) to spread the high cost of
maintenance and software development between many subscibers. The providers
that suffer from Open Source sometimes are the smaller ISPs. The reason is
they under estimate the time involved in Open Source, and do not have enough
scale (subscribers or revenue) to justify the costs of addative development.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
I disagree that many providers have used open source to their advantage.
Certainly, many providers have used open source to save money over
competitors, but have they beaten those competitors using their open
source advantage? I'd suggest most have just squabbled whatever cost
advantage they had with open source due to errors in their model
elsewhere. How is it that companies who build their network with expensive
name brand gear often are more successful?
-Matt
On Jun 13, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Matt,
You brought up an excellent point regarding management gains with MPLS.
In many cases, I'd argue MPLS the preferable choice. But MPLS is not
always a viable choice, that VLAN can deliver viably.
What I mean by that is... There is not yet a complete/stable/tried-
and-true MPLS Open Source product on the market. (they exist but not
recently updated or supported). Many providers have used Open Source to
their advantage. Selecting MPLS may also mean migrating to a new
foundation behind one's network. From Open Source to Name Brand. I'm
not saying thats a bad thing. I'm just saying it might be more than a
provider wants to do to accomplish their goals. VLAN allows an ISP to
just drop it in. The trade off is a management headache. These comments
are meant as a very generalized comment, there are obvious many
exceptions to the view..
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device
Charles Wu wrote:
It is worth noting that you lose the benefits of routing protocols
when you
bridge your network
The above is the number one reason against using VLANs for layer 2
transport. A second important issue to consider is management. Every
device from end-to-end where you want to deliver layer 2 transport
requires configuration if you use VLANs.
Both of the above issues are solved with MPLS. First, MPLS rides on top
of your layer 3 network giving you all the benefits of routing
protocols. Second, you only need to configure the edge device on either
side of a layer 2 virtual circuit. All the devices
in-between --including protection paths don't require additional
configuration for each virtual circuit.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
