|
jwh posted:secondary addresses  that ain't an ASA problem!
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
abigserve posted:
Maybe so, but it's still stupid!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
I don't actually work in the industry yet, only just got my CCENT/studying for the CCNA, but is there a problem with having a Cisco-only shop?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Erkenntnis posted:I don't actually work in the industry yet, only just got my CCENT/studying for the CCNA, but is there a problem with having a Cisco-only shop? Cisco only cuts you out of a lot of gear that can be cheaper/better than similar Cisco gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Erkenntnis posted:I don't actually work in the industry yet, only just got my CCENT/studying for the CCNA, but is there a problem with having a Cisco-only shop? There are reasons why companies like Juniper, F5, Palo Alto, Riverbed, etc., exist, and it's often because Cisco's offering in those spaces is found to be lacking by the people that work with that equipment. There are other more esoteric reasons, too, but that's generally what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Case in point: The Cisco SRP range of $500 non-IOS 'small business routers' are super dogshit for the price, can't push more than 40MB/sec down through PPPoE on our national GPON FTTH deployment. A $70 Microtik box gets line speed. Good thing I got access to a stack of sub-$100 used 1841s to replace these shitboxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
Erkenntnis posted:I don't actually work in the industry yet, only just got my CCENT/studying for the CCNA, but is there a problem with having a Cisco-only shop? Cisco is really good at what it does best. However once you get some experience, it's obvious that cisco isn't the best at everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
In this industry, as long as you aren't religious about "cisco-only" or "no cisco solutions ever!" you'll do fine (and probably a lot better than many others).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Gap In The Tooth posted:Case in point: The Cisco SRP range of $500 non-IOS 'small business routers' are super dogshit for the price, can't push more than 40MB/sec down through PPPoE on our national GPON FTTH deployment. A $70 Microtik box gets line speed. Hate to break it to you, but the SRP500 series might be faster than the 1841 routers since 1841's are only rated for 75k packets per second or ~38mbps... and that's not counting NAT overhead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
We are like 95% cisco at our SP - We have some arris CMTS's and a juniper MX960 in our caching server farm and it's only purpose is to negotiate better pricing with cisco apparently. Not that anyone is going to leave cisco because then our free lunch's are ruined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
jwh posted:Riverbed Oh man, loving WAAS. I've got a hardon for Riverbed in the worst way. Getting 95%+ optimization on traffic and being able to stage VDI across the WAN? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Erkenntnis posted:I don't actually work in the industry yet, only just got my CCENT/studying for the CCNA, but is there a problem with having a Cisco-only shop? Their ASA and wireless tech are dog poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Erkenntnis posted:I don't actually work in the industry yet, only just got my CCENT/studying for the CCNA, but is there a problem with having a Cisco-only shop? I'm a big believer in 'best tool for the job' and am generally wary of 'x-only' shops. We use Cisco for routing and switching, Juniper for firewalls, Riverbed for WAN Accel and F5 for load balancing. Works for us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Their ASA and wireless tech are dog poo poo. I wouldn't call their wireless bad, it's just wildly overpriced, annoying to use, and offers nothing over their cheaper competitors. I've had such a hard time convincing the federal manager here why ASAs are bullshit and why the Stonegates we purchased are vastly superior in every way, shape, and form. His main (and completely legitimate) concern is that some upper-middle manager will react to the first problem we have with them by asking "Well why aren't you using Cisco?" psydude fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
We have 90k+ Cisco AP's and 180 8510/5508 WLC's deployed , I wouldn't say they're poo poo but they do have some bugs.
Sepist fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
90,000 APs? Is that for the entire DoD or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
No I work for a cable provider that has 90k AP's deployed - I would never work for the government 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:90,000 APs? Is that for the entire DoD or something? Of course not, the government approaches wireless the same way the Catholic Church approaches condoms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Sepist posted:No I work for a cable provider that has 90k AP's deployed - I would never work for the government Good man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
psydude posted:His main (and completely legitimate) concern is that some upper-middle manager will react to the first problem we have with them by asking "Well why aren't you using Cisco?" That line of managerial theory has always bothered me. Ford sold the most cars in the US in 2012, but that's a bad reason to buy a Focus when you need a WRX. Well, inasmuch as anyone needs a WRX. It's a car analogy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
We use Cisco because of brand recognition. When we have equal bids on a contract and we have Cisco hardware included, and the other guys are planning on using iBoss, we usually get very good feedback.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
jwh posted:That line of managerial theory has always bothered me. Yeah all I can really do is watch and learn what not to do when I eventually get into a similar position. I've never been one to cower in fear of upper management, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
workape posted:Oh man, loving WAAS. I've got a hardon for Riverbed in the worst way. Getting 95%+ optimization on traffic and being able to stage VDI across the WAN?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
bort posted:If I didn't have remote offices angrily calling when a Steelhead isn't working, I would think they were just passing traffic and making pretty graphs. Those things are magic and their claims are so outrageous they don't seem possible. Oh, they aren't completely without utter loving insanity. Encrypted exchange traffic? Forget about it. Even if you have the loving thing set up right it's god damned hit or miss on whether it is going to work or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
It depends. I conducted a fairly large Riverbed evaluation, and due to the nature of this particular home-grown application, the Riverbeds reduced WAN traffic by about 50% but the end-user experience was the same as without them. We didn't understand how this could be, and to some extent I still don't, but that was the end user feedback. Consistently, and across a very large sample base. I thought they were nice boxes, for whatever it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Riverbeds are really good at optimizing SMB traffic, which dramatically improves the user experience for remote sites using central windows file mounts. Of course, the cost of two steelheads is really high when compared to the cost of a remote file system and disk so it's a tricky one. psydude posted:I wouldn't call their wireless bad, it's just wildly overpriced, annoying to use, and offers nothing over their cheaper competitors. I'd like to throw in that we use another vendor that is leaps and bounds ahead of the Cisco wireless gear in terms of features and flexibility but we've run into a ton of bugs and annoyances due to, apparently, poor version control within the company leading to required upgrades breaking lots of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:and am generally wary of 'x-only' shops. I've known hiring managers who immediately pass on potential hirees who are single vendor engineers
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
abigserve posted:
Trapeze?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
World z0r Z posted:Trapeze? For sake of professionalism I'm not going to mention any specifics here, but if you want more details send me a PM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Just post it. Then post about your experiences with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Riverbed chat? I can dig that. My background is mostly with Citrix NetScaler appliances but at my current gig they are all Riverbed and so far I'm quite impressed. We have approximately 25 units deployed at branches and are seeing +50% data reduction:
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
World z0r Z posted:I've known hiring managers who immediately pass on potential hirees who are single vendor engineers I don't reject them, but I definitely don't prefer it to someone who has had to deal with multi-vendor environments. It's usually indicative of someone with a very narrow scope of knowledge more than anything else in my experience. What is everyone using for OOB these days? I went to order a POTS line to our new POP and, yeah, it's going to take enough effort to get a POTS phone that it has me thinking about non-POTS/DSL OOB methods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
FatCow posted:I don't reject them, but I definitely don't prefer it to someone who has had to deal with multi-vendor environments. It's usually indicative of someone with a very narrow scope of knowledge more than anything else in my experience. Cellular, DSL, colo provider's OOB network if available.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Cellular is the way to go, to my mind. Particularly if you're trying to divorce yourself from the facility infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
What is the low density mixed 10gig/1gig aggregation platform du jour? I haven't been shopping for switches in a while.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
If I had to choose something today I would choose EX4500 and EX4200 in mixed mode virtual chassis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
Is it possible to have a flapping multicast route? I'm having occasional troubles getting to 8.8.8.8 with one particular service provider, troubles which magically solve themselves after 10 minutes (and of course before any issued tickets can be looked at).
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Gap In The Tooth posted:Is it possible to have a flapping multicast route? I'm having occasional troubles getting to 8.8.8.8 with one particular service provider, troubles which magically solve themselves after 10 minutes (and of course before any issued tickets can be looked at). 8.8.8.8 is anycast not multicast. I wouldn't trust Google's public DNS for anything business critical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
Could someone explain or link to something explaining IGMP vs. PIM and IGMP snooping re: multi cast TV over IP?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:15 |
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Could someone explain or link to something explaining IGMP vs. PIM and IGMP snooping re: multi cast TV over IP? IGMP is for hosts and adjacent routers to establish multicast group membership. PIM is what's going on between multicast routers to establish multicast routes through an IP network. IGMP snooping is a switch function that prunes multicast traffic from ports that haven't joined the multicast group. This is because otherwise the switch would flood multicast traffic. With IGMP snooping the switch has to see an IGMP join message on a port before allowing multicast traffic for that group. At least, that's always been my understanding. Multicast is weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:11
|
|