[BlueOnyx:12496] Re: Upgrading Switch

[Chuck Tetlow]

Thanks Mark, I was about to mention that.

There have been a number of companies that Cisco has bought when they saw someone who was doing something right.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, they bought whoever was doing it best at the time.

That's how Cisco got into network security - bought the Wheel Group right here in San Antonio.  I knew and worked with some of those guys when they were AF Lieutenants and Captains.  After they'd got out, and built the Wheel Group into a huge success - Cisco bought the company, and they all retired as millionaires.

So a number of companies have built their products to be "Cisco-like" and "IOS-like" - in the hope that Cisco will see their value and buy them up.  The Catalyst line of switches was one.  The PIX line of firewalls was another.  And many others.

So when I mentioned recently that Catalyst is "IOS-like" - that what I meant.  It was close to IOS when Cisco bought the company and their line of switches.  And later, Cisco ported IOS onto it directly.  But that takes some time!

And I'll also back Chris's comments.  I've worked with Cisco gear since 1991.  Since back in the MGS and AGS days - when upgrading entailed receiving a half-dozen tubes of chips and spending a whole day pulling/replacing individual chips.  And I can count the number of Cisco equipment failures on just one hand.  And when you do have a failure - Cisco will over-night a replacement to you.

I also agree with Chris's comments about Linksys.  Cisco tried two different times to break into the SOHO market.  Their products were too expensive and sometimes required knowledgeable help to configure.  So they finally wised up and just bought a company that had a established footprint in the SOHO market - Linksys.  Unfortunately, Linksys's equipment was so cheap that it was a regular replacement item.  Put one in, six months later it fails, and you just put in another.  They were cheap enough that it didn't hurt too bad - until you look at how many you had to replace over five years and compare that cost to a single Cisco unit.  That's when the company owner goes "OH!  Now I see why you recommended that more-expensive Cisco".

Linksys's equipment has gotten better since it was bought by Cisco.  But it still has a higher failure rate than others.

DLink has been pretty good, but still a number of failures.

Netgear is slow and interfaces are flaky.

HP has some good products.  But we've replaced two of their Procurve switches within one year of installation.  Luckily, their support is good - but it costs our customers OUR time to do the replacement, and of course - their down-time.  Doesn't make them happy!

And I agree - stay away from Dell.  Confusing, inconsistent configuration steps from model to model, and flaky.

Chuck

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Mark E. Levy" <mark at levysplace.us> 
To: BlueOnyx General Mailing List <blueonyx at mail.blueonyx.it> 
Sent: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 12:09:16 -0600 (CST) 
Subject: [BlueOnyx:12494] Re: Upgrading Switch

> IIRC, there was a company called Catalyst that Cisco bought. CATOS was not native Cisco.
> 
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

> From: "Chris Gebhardt - VIRTBIZ Internet" <cobaltfacts at virtbiz.com>
> To: "BlueOnyx General Mailing List" <blueonyx at mail.blueonyx.it>
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 11:56:22 AM
> Subject: [BlueOnyx:12493] Re: Upgrading Switch
> 
> I've been staying away from this thread as long as I could.   ;)
> 
> When we built our datacenter and our satellite POPs, we did so with 
> Cisco infrastructure.  We come from back in the day when 7507 routers 
> and 5513 switches were state-of-the-art.  That's when we first became 
> responsible for managing our own infrastructure.   Of course, we have 
> progressed a long way since those times.
> 
> Personally, I can get around in IOS and CatOS.  CatOS got a real bad 
> rap, and I think it was a mistake to create something with a different 
> syntax.  Obviously, Cisco agreed and later killed CatOS off.  But we 
> still have some devices that are running it.  We have a handful of 
> Catalyst5505's still doing duty, and they've logged THOUSANDS of days of 
> continuous uptime.
> 
> The "real" Cisco gear works, works well, is utterly reliable and, like 
> it or not, is the industry standard by which all others are judged. 
> You'll always notice that when comparisons are made, it's always with a 
> Cisco as a reference point.  I'm not saying there are not other great 
> manufacturers.  There certainly are, and other vendors have a bunch of 
> good things that recommend them.   But for us, we have no reason to 
> change our infrastructure & network backbone.
> 
> When it comes to making recommendations for customer equipment, I always 
> say you won't be "wrong" for choosing Cisco.  That's always a right 
> answer.  Not the only right answer, mind you.  But you won't be wrong.
> 
> Just make sure that if you do go Cisco, it's "real" Cisco.   That 
> Linksys stuff that's branded Cisco... what a mistake that was.  Chances 
> are, if your Cisco is blue/green, you're good to go.   If it's black, 
> take it back!
> 
> I don't sell the equipment, and I honestly don't have any interest if 
> you buy any particular brand.  But if you ask me my experience, and what 
> I see that customers bring in and what works vs. what doesn't?  Well, 
> here's a sampling:
> 
> Cisco:        If it's "real", it's going to work.  We can even help you config it.
> 
> Cisco-branded Linksys:  Nope. Not worth it.  In my view, it's overpriced 
> junk.
> 
> Juniper: Seems to be solid.
> 
> HP ProCurve:  I can count on one finger the problems I have seen with them.
> 
> Dell PowerConnect:  Run, do not walk, from this garbage as fast as you 
> can.   It has pseudo-management that theoretically allows you to divide 
> into VLANs, but offers no SNMP whatsoever?  And no proper CLI?  What's 
> up with that?  Junk.
> 
> Dell ProConnect: Seems OK for low traffic (ie: anything under 20Mbps to 
> the gateway).  Will lock up much past that, and is utterly incapable of 
> handling wirespeed on more than 4 ports.
> 
> Dlink:  Surprisingly solid.   I had my doubts, and the CLI is a little 
> odd, but I think that's more a matter of familiarity.
> 
> And then there's all the unmanaged stuff.   For me, most of that all 
> sort of runs together.  We have customers that I know paid $200 for an 
> unmanaged 24-port GigE switch from Netgear or similar, and they're only 
> using 4 ports.  We've put in off-brand 5-port GigE switches that cost 
> less than $40 for other customers and they've gotten the same kind of 
> results.
> 
> As far as the OP's question goes, you can find some Cisco 3550's for not 
> a lot of money on ebay these days.   And 2924's are practically free 
> these days.  Yes, they're old, but they'll still be running after I'm 
> gone from this Earth.    I'd probably head in one of those directions.
> 
> -- 
> Chris Gebhardt
> VIRTBIZ Internet Services
> Access, Web Hosting, Colocation, Dedicated
> www.virtbiz.com | toll-free (866) 4 VIRTBIZ
> _______________________________________________
> Blueonyx mailing list
> Blueonyx at mail.blueonyx.it
> http://mail.blueonyx.it/mailman/listinfo/blueonyx
------- End of Original Message -------
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.blueonyx.it/pipermail/blueonyx/attachments/20130308/ebe7b622/attachment.html>