Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HP Accuses Cisco of Diverting Data Center Standard

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the another-romance-comes-to-an-end dept.

HP 47

alphadogg writes "Networking rivals HP and Cisco have abandoned their common ground in data center switching, with HP accusing Cisco of diverting an IEEE standard and Cisco insisting that customers drove the change. At issue are two as-yet unratified standards in the IEEE for data center switching that were being defined in concert but are now diverging: IEEE 802.1Qbg and 802.1Qbh."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's the issue? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35148472)

According to TFA, Cisco (and others from the IEEE ballot) wished to add SP capabilities, as well as broaden the standard to support multicast at a tagging level. It's not like Cisco are subverting an existing standard or using their market share to lock out existing HP solutions.

Sure, if this was out there, ratified and Cisco broke it as an embrace, extend, extinguish then I'd see the issue. But it's not, they just wanted to add something for a market HP don't play in (Service Provider) and HP got upset by it...

Smells like trolling to me.

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35148738)

It is to Cisco's advantage to prevent the emergence of standards where they have created proprietary protocols.

Re:What's the issue? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150482)

Personally I'm all for a more comprehensive standard that is versatile enough to not just meet todays immediate needs but also future needs which seems to be what Cisco is pushing for. If this causes HP some delay in getting a new switch out due to ASIC changes so be it, who want hardware that's obsolete before it even get out of design?

Re:What's the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35152666)

Yes. Having used HP hardware (given to my company due to a partnership for VideoConferencing tech and render farm tech) it was obsolete before it shipped. It's a business model for them.

who cares about HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35148708)

Isn't HP's networking / DC Networkign gear just follow the leader gear stuff anyway?

Re:who cares about HP (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35149030)

Depends on how fancy you want it(and how much you feel like paying...)

Cisco has a fairly commanding lead in Real Serious WAN routers and such; but is just narrowly ahead of HP in share for the more basic managed switches that(unless you are absolutely made of money) probably provide most of the ports that your gear is hanging off. Particularly given the growth of both cost-sensitive-but-massive-in-scale commodity cluster/cloud provider stuff(which certainly doesn't cost 8.5 cents an hour by running on infiniband...) and the widespread adoption of VM clusters and iSCSI SANs among smaller outfits that wouldn't know what a fibre channel HBA looked like, being the "solid(unlike Dell switches, may no one have mercy on their souls); but comparatively inexpensive provider of bulk ethernet ports isn't exactly a bad place to be...

Re:who cares about HP (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150158)

Who cares at all? Only 10 comments after a few hours. No-one gives a shit.

Re:who cares about HP (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35151614)

Yeah, I suspect that only 20% of server networkers would even be interested in this standard, and way less than half of them would actually apply it. The others either leave it to the sysadmins to keep their VMs from compromising each other, or rely on the blade hardware for performance reasons too much to want to go bouncing their intense sql traffic over a copper pair just for the sake of applying ACLs in a syntax they are familiar with.

(Aside -- I often wonder if the manpower invested in switch clustering technology has actually produced a net gain of productivity, or a net drain due to all the time wasted just for the sake of reducing managed switch count by a factor of 4 or so. I suspect this standard will be about as productive an endeavor.)

Re:who cares about HP (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35151422)

Having edge switches that, minus a few quirks that are totally circumventable, fulfill all the needs of most sanely designed campus environments, and cost 1/3rd or less the price of equivalent Cisco gear, and use marginally less power, is certainly not a very bad place to be at all.

"The wonderful thing about standards . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35148796)

. . . is that there are so many of them to choose from. "

Re:"The wonderful thing about standards . . . (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35148916)

Yes, thats why MS forced OOXML as open document standard beside ODF. With two standards people do not know which to use and so stay on old one (MS closed). And, actually, OOXML is't even open.

Re:"The wonderful thing about standards . . . (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35149046)

Not to worry. My sources tell me that the IEEE should be coming out with a new standard, needlessly crufty because of the need to be backwards compatible with both of its compatible predecessors, just a year or two after you've made a major investment in hardware that the vendor has no plans to support upgrading. Everything should be fully sorted out after you retire.

Cisco is the M$ of network equipment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35149064)

Fuck you, Cisco. FUCK. YOU.

sarees (0)

salwars (1917960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35149092)

Nice post.. Cisco will make a difference.. http://www.sareez.com/ [sareez.com]

This is not how you play the game. (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35149616)

Guys, this is not how to play the standards game. Neither of you are Microsoft. Neither of you are OpenOffice.org. This game is best played between a well funded behemoth with deep pockets against a collection of rag tag individuals. Deep Pockets, Inc will create benami [*] entities that will pretend to be industry groups but will play the role of being shills and pimps for Deep Pockets, Inc.

The rag tag bunch of individuals on the opposite team are tenuously bonded by their common opposition to Deep Pockets, but will spend as much time fighting their own team as Deep Pockets, Inc. These people are against Deep Pockets, Inc on principle, and because their motivation is their "principle", they would be against anyone who do not share their principles, even if they are in their own team.

The game play is very interesting to watch and very tragic in outcome. Usually Deep Pockets, Inc will be able to do the equivalent of changing the supply voltage of the household electric connection, and make every electrical appliance in the house to become obsolete, once in two years. The benamis will be paid their 30 shekels, Deep Pockets will report robust growth in their electrical appliance sales, and the rag tag individuals will gripe about it in slashdot. And the game will repeat. So predictable, so enjoyable.

[*] Glossary:

Benami, (n) Someone who holds a title to a property for legal purposes while some one else is the real owner. A system created in India during British Raj when the British army officers were not allowed to own property in India. They would nominate a native as the owner on the title papers, but continue to be the de facto owners of the property, sometimes without even the knowledge of the benami. It has now evolved into a huge tax evasion infrastructure for Indian politicians, civil servants, traders and money launderers.

Re:This is not how you play the game. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35150864)

The rag tag bunch of individuals on the opposite team are tenuously bonded by their common opposition to Deep Pockets, but will spend as much time fighting their own team as Deep Pockets, Inc. These people are against Deep Pockets, Inc on principle, and because their motivation is their "principle", they would be against anyone who do not share their principles, even if they are in their own team.

People's Front of Judea: The only people we hate more than the Romans are the Judean People's Front!

Cisco Vs. HP (5, Informative)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150164)

Honestly, when push comes to shove, who is going to defer to HP over Cisco when it comes to networking? Despite the obvious trolls and flames against Cisco because they are so big, as a network engineer who deals with many different vendors everyday on a huge enterprise level network, I long for the day of an all Cisco environment. Why? Because Cisco stuff just works. All of our main components are Cisco: Firewalls, Wireless controllers and access points, and high-level layer-3 switches and routers. Before we were mostly Cisco, there were nothing but problems, including compatibility on the hardware and protocol level and just general failures of hardware. Since the move to a mostly Cisco network we have less than 50% of the issues we had before. Perhaps it "just works" only because Cisco uses some proprietary protocols and such, but who cares when it all works so well?

Our longest running devices on the network (been up for over 800 consecutive days) are Cisco. We have Juniper, Enterasys, HP, 3Com, Linksys Business-class, IBM, and several other vendors equipment on our network in one form or another, and the only one we never have an issue with is Cisco. I don't think this is coincidence.

So why would anyone go with or defer to HP when it comes to networking? Anyone who has sat in a room with HP delivering a marketing presentation will know they claim "We are better than Cisco because _______" all day long. Problem is, they aren't. And anyone who has configured an HP device from the CLI will tell you that they are so similar to Cisco in terms of the feel it goes well beyond flattery with how much they model after Cisco. Problem is, HP has the same problem that most other networking vendors have: they are still lacking when compared to Cisco. Both in support, quality, and reliability.

Perhaps someone has had bad experiences with Cisco, and that turned them off to them for life, but most people who work in networking everyday will tell you they'd rather be on a Cisco device than any other.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150404)

I'm in a small (9 site) business that uses Cisco gear for all the interconnect. Cisco's have some glorious uptime, but little me has found 3 different bugs in IOS simply dealing with the day to day activities of our shop. Access lists that won't apply to a policy (standard ACL only, the extended ACL applied just fine), spurious items in the running config that change throughout the day by themselves, SIP session handling causing the call to be dropped *before it was answered*...

Yes, Cisco's have great uptime, and yes, we'll stick with them, but not because they're perfect - we stick with Cisco because of TAC. When the shit hits the fan, TAC has your back. I've never had a better experience with a technical support team than I've had with TAC. Sure it might take some time to get through to second level or even third level, but those guys know their stuff and will do what it takes to get things functional. I literally have a private IOS build sitting on my core router right now ready to go live this weekend to fix a bug.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150806)

I definitely agree with you. Cisco is not "perfect" by any means. Anyone who mass-produces anything will have some issues. And like I said, the compatibility between Cisco and other vendors, when using a proprietary protocols from Cisco especially, can be tedious. But if EVERYTHING was Cisco (including any other devices or companies we interface with) I think there would be almost issues.

And yes, all things being equal, their TAC is what should make you go Cisco at the end of the day. I call TAC and get a person on the phone, ready to remote in and help you configure a device, troubleshoot a problem, or process an RMA. Although you may get an outsourced person on the phone with a thick accent, they are always very nice and helpful. And if you request it, they usually can get you a native-English speaking person. Although I've gotten used to the accents so I can understand them.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35151506)

I don't know what your network is layed out like, but if you don't find bugs regularly in IOS, you probably aren't doing much with the gear.

Cisco *used* to have stellar documentation, features that just worked, and very, very stable gear. Now they only have the latter. Docs are a mess, as bad as their competitors, feature sets are extremely poorly QA'd and do not work a lot of the time. However, the gear doesn't generally crash if all you use is the very basic features, and damage is compartmentalised when you do stumble onto a bug.

But for the price? We stopped buying Cisco on the edge. We just couldn't justify the $$$

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

Alok (37687) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153972)

the compatibility between Cisco and other vendors, when using a proprietary protocols from Cisco especially, can be tedious.

So this is similar to the cries about OpenOffice not supporting .doc formats with 100% compatibility, when MSO won't support ODF or others *at all* even though they are better structured & documented?

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35150492)

As a network admin in a commerical data center, I have to +1 everything above. I've used and configured pretty much every brand under the sun in regards routing/switching. I could only dream of the day everything was all cisco. While our network is pure cisco (after years of mixed Juniper, HP, and endless nights of emergency pages etc), we still have to interface with customer equipment regardless of brand. Cisco just works, well and reliably. Juniper would be my second choice when it comes to core routing, with the others trailing after. Just the pure fact of product maturity, ironing out bugs and problems over the years keeps cisco at the top of the pile. The rest tend to play catchup and users suffer while bugs are worked out.

As long as standards are established and all vendors obey nicely, I dont care who the driving force was/is. We just want to avoid vendor specific protocols/standards etc, so all the devices can play together nicely.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150810)

I'll vouch for HP. We deal with a lot of school districts that have been switching from Cisco switched networks to HP and have nothing but good things to say. Uptime has always been comparable, prices were always lower, lifetime warranty is included, and firmware updates do not require a subscription. If you enjoy sinking money into Smartnet and expensive equipment, go ahead.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150942)

Actually Cisco has come in lower on most bids than HP and many other vendors in my experience. It all depends on the discounts you can get and how badly Cisco wants to get into your environment. If you have a school district with only a few branches and a few hundred people that all run off 1 core and a few closet switches, you won't get as much attention as a larger network. And in most cases, a small network like that most admins will not see a need to have Cisco because their budget is so small. A move TO cisco will usually cost more in the SHORT term, especially on a smaller network. It's the long term support, quality, and reliability that suffers outside Cisco. Let alone the issues of connectivity and compatibility between other networks.

In a government-level network that supports many thousands of users and towns, smartnet and 24/7 service with 24 hour replacement is worth the $. The reason a lot of school districts move away from Cisco is that they don't realize that they don't need Cisco for everything. You can easily buy Cisco closet switches and not put smartnet on them, and buy standard off-brand Cisco gbics to save $ and then just have smartnet and the full support contracts for cores and other critical devices like wireless controllers. The argument over the $ that Cisco costs is usually only valid when you include smartnet and full service contracts on ALL devices. Keep a few spare closet switches in stock and you don't need the smartnet but you still get the reliability of a Cisco product.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153246)

That depends on expansion plans. Vendors will sometimes drop their pants bidding for an initial installation under the assumption that they can soak you later when you upgrade. It's well and good to get a nice price on the buildout, but you could be setting yourself up for years of cutting corners and doing without.

The bigger the network, the more sense it makes to just have one or 2 cold spares on the shelf rather than relying on 24 hour replacement.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (4, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35150992)

I would agree with you for networking, but not firewalling. As someone who's managing > 100 Cisco firewalls, let me assure you that they're not the perfection you make them out to be...there are plenty of weird bugs/problems with the ASAs, just like with any other vendor. If you want to see just how broken they can be, ask for a detailed explanation of just how their active/active firewall solution works. (Hint: map out the packet flow when a packet arrives at the second context for a flow that started on the first context..and then be horrified at how they route packets internally.)

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35152912)

I personally think that most "active-active" firewall scenarios cause more problems than they solve ;).

Whether it's Cisco, Juniper or Checkpoint, it's usually less reliable.

With a hot standby you just have to cut-over _once_ when stuff fails. With active-active, your cut-overs in effect happen regularly. And for most implementations, if you understand the details you'd know it's not such a great thing. Speaking of details go look up how Juniper does active-active - for "real" active-active you need the clients to have two default routes ;).

If you have just two active-active firewalls, what happens if you are running both at 75% and one fails? You'd then have to drop traffic right? So that breaks any requirement that "no users notice".

And if you have many active-active firewalls, just imagine how much state they'd have to exchange amongst each other.

Seems to me "active-active" firewalls are mainly to satisfy PHBs who want all their expensive firewalls to be "working" at the same time ;). They probably don't understand that firemen are still working when they're "just waiting" for the call.

As for Cisco, years ago their switches caused problems with an active-active checkpoint firewall configuration. Everything in theory should have worked. In practice it didn't. Spent hours trying to figure it out - configuring the checkpoint, sniffing the traffic etc, looking at the switches etc.

In the end we got desperate and requested that the core cisco switches be rebooted. And after that it worked! No changes to anything - cisco and firewall configs still the same (saved too).

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35154320)

Agree 100%. We went through the same thing with active-active vs active-passive, you gain nothing from active-active other than complexity, at least for every scenario we came up with. And yes, ASAs are very quirky firewalls, no question about it. The 8.3 NAT change was especially annoying. Would also like to be able to use some virtual contexts in transparent and some in non-transparent (to terminate ipsec tunnels). I'm definitely not in love with them, but they're not awful.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

lanner (107308) | more than 3 years ago | (#35154676)

Cisco ASAs suck. We have a couple of 5580 series with 10G ports and lots of VLANs. They fail over often, configuration is a nightmare if you need to move a VLAN interface from one physical port to another, etc etc. Buggy as hell. I make the purchasing decisions around here and we are NOT going with Cisco come a year or two from now when we replace them. I'd rather just use iptables than Cisco ACLs.

Cisco wireless sucks too, along with ACS, their radius/tacacs+ server (which only runs on Windows). Go Aruba.

As for Cisco networking, you are crazy. Look at their crappy 10G switches. Arista, Juniper, Force10, Extreme, Brocade(foundry), have Cisco whipped (Except maybe for the 4900M, which is an okay switch).

Look at the Cisco 3750-E switch. Juniper whipped Cisco's ass with the E 4200 series -- faster and cheaper. Cisco had to come out with the 3750-X, and they still price it higher than the Juniper, even though the Juniper has multiple advantages (faster interconnect, more nodes in the cluster, etc).

Cisco has some nice little routers, and some of their carrier stuff is good to, but Juniper still has them bent over for high-cap transit.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35154922)

See I have not had this experience at all. We manage many ASA's as well, 5505's, 5520's, etc. Most are in failover setups with one active, and the other in standby. NEVER have issues. They never fall over for no reason. If you have an ASA that falls over for no reason, it is most likely a bug. The one time we had one fail for no reason it just required a quick IOS upgrade. That was 2 years ago. Haven't had an issue with that since. But I definitely know Cisco isn't perfect. There is no such thing as "perfect". But I think when they are stacked up against other vendors, it is hard to deny Cisco being #1 in terms of reliability and support.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155170)

Yes, the Cisco ASA firewalls are TERRIBLE! The code is totally bug-ridden and their lack of a good central management software makes managing them a huge pain. The are inexpensive and can do little firewall jobs ok, but I wouldn't trust it with a corporate-sized rulebase. Juniper and Check Point are much better

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

russg (64596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35151674)

If you have a Cisco device that has been up for 800 days it is only because you have ignored security issues and not patched. Cisco is just doing what Cisco does to keep other vendors locked out. You say that Cisco "just works"? Well that's because you ignorantly drink from the cup that is Cisco and likely only use their proprietary protocols.

In any case, you are far better served by having diverse infrastructure components running open protocols than by using one manufacturer. I have insight into some of the largest corporate networks in the world and the most resilient of them will have networking gear from almost every major vendor running open protocols. This keeps competition in place for cost control and the diverse ecosystem isn't universally impacted by any one vendors security issues at the moment.

Since HP has been a big player in networking gear, blade server switching, and is likely one of the biggest suppliers of server gear in datacenters, why wouldn't you listen to them? If I use your logic then no one should listen to Cisco on this topic since the standard under debate has to do with server port virtualization/extension.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35152956)

Diverse infrastructure means Your connecting Vendor A's device to Vendor B's device both vendors having certfied there devices to work with a subset of the vendors other devices. All of them on the marketing sheet say that they are standards compliant but as soon as there's an issue between the two Vendor A blames vendor B and vice versa

But suppose everything works... you then have to reconfigure something like the vlans carried on a trunk.Your hapless network engineer does what he normally does and configures Vendor A's switch which he works with primarily... and then to do the exact same thing with Vendor B's switch he has to dump everything he knows from vendor A and translate the whole the whole shebang into a different cli and configuration methodolgy

If your a small shop with only a few dozen devices you can afford the time and pain... When you have 100's or thousands of interconnected switches your screwed. Especially as number of vendors, (or device product families increases (common cisco what is with nexus) )

Give me a nice homogeneous network with standards so that at least everything is done in the same way so that every problem isn't a one off isolated interaction between devices I don't have anywhere else

Thankfully I'm not even on the networking team.

.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155698)

if "diverse" means more than 2 vendors, then I fear for anyone that has to work on that network. Ease of troubleshooting and interoperability means using 1 or 2 vendors if possible. There is no way I want to deal with the CLI of half a dozen different vendors, have that many more companies to deal with for RMA or tech support, and have that many different proprietary protocols/things going on, because each vendor has something that is unique to them alone.

Also, a device that has been up for 800 days does not mean it has been neglected. Upgrading firmware and/or IOS on an enterprise, gov't level network just for the sake up upgrading is asking for issues. People who upgrade just because a new piece of software or code was released are ridiculous and just don't know any better. Sure, if there is a MAJOR security flaw in an edge router or your main ASA, then yea you might want to consider updating something. But the device I'm talking about is a closet switch. Why does a 3560 need to be updated? It sits on the inside of our network. If someone is in the building plugged into a port in a random closet, then no security patch from the latest IOS release is going to save you...

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

russg (64596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35157348)

Obviously you don't manage or work on a larger network if you are logging into a CLI to do your job. You should have been replaced a long time ago for not automating the work. You first complain that HP modeled after Cisco now you complain that multiple vendor CLIs would be a pain? Make up your mind which side you are selling. I work on the largest networks in the world and, really, they are easy to manage with the appropriate software and automation even with diversity in vendors. Cisco has decent routers and switches but the rest of their crap is, well, crap.

I love to see you justifying not applying security updates because the router/switch is on the internal side. Isn't it well known that the majority of the attacks come from inside? Didn't you read about the Aurora attacks? Ask Google and the others impacted by Aurora if they think its ok to let vulnerabilities go because they are on the "inside". Ok, I'll stop laughing now..

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

encmonkey (564364) | more than 3 years ago | (#35152036)

Cisco's not bad - their main strength is the breadth of their product line. I can't say it always works as I've been bitten by many a cisco bug. I do appreciate that they break ground on tons of features that eventually become standards in their own right, but as a front runner they often step in it too. Juniper's CLI and scripting tools make Cisco's IOS/NOS look like amateur hour. The completely hardware based solutions provide some remarkable throughput but you pay for it. HP has been cranking out strong low-mid range PoE switch solutions that are very attractive on the cost front, especially with their lifetime guarantee. Running a rather large network with cisco/juniper/HP (plus tons of dlink/smc gear on it's way out), I can say that yes, there definitely are challenges. But no vendor has always provided the best tool for the job for every use case and having the ability to leverage multiple vendors has helped keep their costs competitive.

-- Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35152820)

For routing, sure Cisco beats HP. However, these are layer 2 standards. I have never had a network problem where the resolution was reset the HP switch. I have never had a need to reset or power cycle an HP switch. I have never had one fail. Why wouldn't I be interested in what HP has to say about switching?

As for the CLI, they pretty much had to make the syntax as Cisco like as they could, that's what everyone already knew. I appreciate not having to learn a whole new language to configure switches. Note that it also says something about HPs willingness to be a team player.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35152940)

I long for the day of an all Cisco environment. Why? Because Cisco stuff just works.

Exactly the same mentality that allowed MS-Win and MS-Office to achieve

  • vendor lock,
  • the ability to charge a tiny shade less than the switching cost to the alternative,
  • keep raising the switching costs to increase their revenue
  • force their customers to run on the upgrade-treadmill at ever increasing speeds

When you come back whining in five or ten years about the excessive license fees, expensive hardware, and your own inability to switch to a lower cost alternative, don't expect any sympathy from anyone.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35154334)

Where are my mod points when I need them. Amen, brother.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35153304)

I did.

I've got 4 branches, my branches and core are all 7206's with NPE300's and 2x 100meg line cards. Nothing AMAZING or huge, I know, but it quite easily handles my requirements and parts are plentiful (BOUGHT THEM REFURBE'D too!), but all of my switching is procurve. Lifetime warranty/updates/support, identical cli syntax, great price. Damn right i'm using as much procurve as I can! Here's to some solid competition between hp and cisco, both are good products, but i find it hard to argue against a lifetime warranty.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35154268)

Unfortunately you pay through the nose for Cisco gear. We run a 100% Cisco shop (routers, switches, firewalls, CUCM/Unity, many hundreds of Cisco IP phones, ACS, etc etc etc ad naseum) and it's really nice and we have no compatibility problems, but man do we pay through the nose. Even with 40%+ discounts off Cisco's hilarious "list prices" it's still unbelievably expensive. We're seriously considering looking into Juniper for our next router replacement (we just rolled out 2921s to ~50 sites, so it'll be a while) and we're piloting Aruba Networks wireless at one of our facilities. I'm even looking at Arista Networks 10Gb switches for a new datacenter deployment. Literally about 1/4 to 1/3 the price per 10Gb port (once you factor in optics) as compared to a Nexus 5k.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

countach (534280) | more than 3 years ago | (#35154318)

Maybe if you'd ever tried an all-HP environment, you'd actually be in a position to comment. But as it is, you're comparing a vendor lockin Cisco environment with a rag-tag environment, and not with an all-HP environment. So aren't you being a bit silly?

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155626)

Perhaps, but if i had to choose between an all HP or an all Cisco network I'd go Cisco everytime. And yes, I support all HP networks as well as my main Cisco one. And the Cisco network used to be a "rag-tag" of multiple vendors, including HP. The only vendor that gave me more trouble than HP on that network in terms of failures on the hardware side was Enterasys.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35161228)

It has nothing to do with the size of Cisco. They are over priced and maybe it does run well once configured. Configuring their stuff is way to complicated and their firewalls REALLY SUCK! Personally give me HP switches and Vyatta routers and yes we have systems running over 800 days with no problem.

Re:Cisco Vs. HP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35201228)

If you think Cisco 'just works', you've never used one of their software products. And for that, I envy you. Such idealism, such naivety. If I could get back to where you are, I'd be much happier. Enjoy it while you can, and stay away from their software if you want to retain your sanity.

Funny to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35150414)

It's great to see an article that deals with real tech that can't be meme'd into some stupid crap or become a MS bash gets about 2% of the postings that your normal political slop or sci-fi comic book nonsense gets around here.

News for nerds indeed.

too rose colored, cisco folks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35160388)

I've really nothing bad to say about Cisco devices but I will defend HP. I've been an admin of pure cisco and HP networks, as well as hybrid ones. In todays world, HP owns the edge. When Cisco can compete with an edge technology like Virtual Connect Flex-10 and what that saves in 10Gbit networking costs, I'll happily stand corrected, but since I just saved my company over 600K in switches, cabling, and NIC's with no hitches. Of course a pure environment is better than a mixed bag of vendors, is this really the use case you want to present to define cisco networks as being better than HP; that they work awesome when they don't have to diversify? You're not doing your beloved products any justice with comments like that...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?