Is Cisco equpiment de facto for you?

[streiner at cluebyfour.org (Justin M. Streiner)]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Brandon Kim wrote:

> Someone has mentioned that it all really depends on your needs and what 
> it is you want to provide.

Agree 100%.  Some vendors are better at delivering X than others.

> IMO, every vendor has something they are good at. I wouldn't use Cisco 
> for everything, nor Juniper etc etc...

A lot of it comes down to striking an appropriate balance between the 
points I made in my last message.  Using a different vendor for every 
service you offer would probably not scale too well in terms of 
manageability, but getting into bed with one vendor can have consequences 
as well.  It's ultimately up to you to decide how you want to proceed 
since you're the one spending the money :)

> The concern I sense is that from Cisco's POV, it's their way or the 
> highway. Not only do you pay a premium for smartnet, but if there's an 
> issue, they are quick to point the finger. That is not service/support 
> that I desire....

Some of that perceived arrogance came from being the big kid on the 
block.  The way Cisco acted in the past when they were pretty much the 
only game in town reminds me a lot of the way Microsoft and Oracle 
conduct(ed) their business as well, even today **.

I haven't seen much of that from Cisco in a while, but if I have a 
problem with a TAC case or a TAC engineer, I'll get my account team 
involved.  Over the years, a number of legitimate competitors to Cisco 
have gained market share, and competition often has the effect of 
adjusting attitudes and leveling the playing field a bit.

jms

** - had an account rep from Cisco in the dot-com days, whose idea of 
customer interaction was calling to confirm that the purchase order just 
came off the fax machine :)