RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, IS-IS, BGP, MPLS, VTP, STP.
User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9850
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco ACI

Fri May 02, 2014 9:58 am

You'll have to email the new admins. Mods can't do it, and Steve didn't like the idea. The new guys might feel differently. You always have the option to stop visiting the site. That doesn't require an account deletion.

Ps. Your reaction to all of this is very mature.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

Retired Account
Post Whore
Posts:
3512
Joined:
Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Cisco ACI

Fri May 02, 2014 10:13 am

Vito - I thought I could have these discussions/arguments/whatever without my company's reputation brought into it, but it's been directly called out that my interactions could affect future customer transactions. If that's the view I'm putting off, than it really leaves me no choice but to remove myself. I could argue with you till I'm blue in the face, but I won't let it damage the reputation of the company I work for (Or damage further, if that's really the case.). Thanks for the fun chats and I'm sorry it had to be this way. Maybe some day I'll come back and not under my real name - lesson learned, the hard way I guess.

How do I get ahold of the new admins? I don't see a button or their email listed anywhere. I've never had to do this before so I'm not familiar with the process.

AnthonyC
Junior Member
Posts:
63
Joined:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:35 am

Re: Cisco ACI

Fri May 02, 2014 12:57 pm

It is very easy to come off as being too pushy when one is working for a vendor. I get that one can really believe in the product/company but I'd respect one more if they can remain as objective as possible.

User avatar
MrPhreak
Junior Member
Posts:
60
Joined:
Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:19 am
Certs:
CCNA

Re: Cisco ACI

Sun May 04, 2014 2:09 am

:popcorn:

User avatar
wintermute000
Post Whore
Posts:
1008
Joined:
Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: Cisco ACI

Mon May 05, 2014 1:55 am

my take on this bearing in mind in our small corner of the world we don't have any of the big boys 'real' deployments.

The reason FP/TRILL solutions have been dominant so far is simply due to the incumbent, the engineers trained in the incumbent, but more importantly, it lets us design solutions utilising the same OSI model building blocks as we've always done. Also for most non-massive deployments, it makes perfect sense. I approach overlay solutions like I approach any proposal involving pseudowires or GRE tunnels duct taped together: last resort :)

The VXLAN proposition is being driven from the vmware angle and if there's something I've learnt over the years, is that servers v networks, the server teams will win, simply because they are larger and bigger, and also, when the network team 'wins', the effect is invisible (ie stuff just runs). Also VXLAN enables the scaling out of virtual DC topologies in a manner that makes life MUCH easier for server/virtual admins, even though from a R&S network POV it just adds a second layer of complexity over your initial complexity. Mind you it does enable some very elegant solutions and abstracted topologies. It also gets > 4096 VLAN limit.

I wouldn't be surprised if VXLAN starts taking over but I don't see how it eliminates the need for a complex R&S core, it abstracts the problem and moves it entirely into layer 2.5 so to speak. Its like MPLS for vlans.

This is pure pie in the sky thinking now and I could be very wrong, but from where I sit, this SDN/virtual DC issue seems like the same question that has already been answered before by service provider topologies. Why not just run MPLS directly into virtual and treat each Virtual VLAN or segment just like how any ISP treats a retail customer (terminate with a virtual router that gets its attributes from radius, yada yada, the layer 2 transport is now just vswitches, seems like an easy way to do it)? If they need to be tied together across multiple instances, run MPLS VPN between them. Or is that just so simple its stupid?

As for the OP, well, you know exactly what vito burnyd et al do and what they know, so if you're going to start a full and frank discussion whilst wearing your vendor badge (and bias) on your sleeve, what else did you expect? Frankly speaking I don't understand why you've chosen to react the way you have instead of debating each point on its merits. I don't think anyone is offended, and i for one would much rather each point of discussion be explored fully - whether that means a few caps locks or assertive statements, so be it lol - rather than one side taking their bat and ball and going home.

User avatar
ristau5741
Post Whore
Posts:
10618
Joined:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:15 pm
Certs:
Instanity

Re: Cisco ACI

Mon May 05, 2014 8:48 am

Steven King wrote:How do I get ahold of the new admins? I don't see a button or their email listed anywhere. I've never had to do this before so I'm not familiar with the process.


try this

http://justdelete.me/
Tips of the day:
- The human mind is the ultimate creation invention.
- I have so many customers, my customers have customers.
- Sausage time
- POP, stack, and store

AnthonyC
Junior Member
Posts:
63
Joined:
Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:35 am

Re: Cisco ACI

Mon May 05, 2014 9:12 am

wintermute000 wrote:This is pure pie in the sky thinking now and I could be very wrong, but from where I sit, this SDN/virtual DC issue seems like the same question that has already been answered before by service provider topologies. Why not just run MPLS directly into virtual and treat each Virtual VLAN or segment just like how any ISP treats a retail customer (terminate with a virtual router that gets its attributes from radius, yada yada, the layer 2 transport is now just vswitches, seems like an easy way to do it)? If they need to be tied together across multiple instances, run MPLS VPN between them. Or is that just so simple its stupid?


Take a look at this article (http://etherealmind.com/overlay-network ... e-is-dead/), basically VXLAN can do everything that MPLS can do within the data center but it reduces the complexity and costs associated with a MPLS deployment. Also with almost all major vendors supporting VXLAN and VMware NSX using it, I think the author is spot on.

User avatar
Beginners_mind
Senior Member
Posts:
287
Joined:
Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:29 am

Re: Cisco ACI

Mon May 05, 2014 10:04 am

Yeah I think the problem with mpls in the DC (as I understand it and fully acknowledging that I am not an expert ) isn't the mpls itself, it's the provisioning at the edge. It's hideously complex. As a transport virtualization tech it's kick ass but a new provisioning model would need to be created for it to be viable I reckon.

This is the link that pops up in google above the ethereal mind one. Pretty good read, I think I've prob read it half a dozen times by now,

http://www.sdncentral.com/use-cases/doe ... s/2012/12/

-b
"Certs: CCIE written but expire"

User avatar
Ironman401
Senior Member
Posts:
498
Joined:
Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:17 am
Certs:
CCNP, CCNA Security, JNCIA

Re: Cisco ACI

Mon May 05, 2014 12:37 pm

What's Arista? (just kidding) Sorry to see that you want to leave Steve. I enjoyed reading your posts and the information you put forward.
"You know, it's moments like these when I realize how much of a superhero I am." -Ironman

User avatar
Netw0rx
Junior Member
Posts:
94
Joined:
Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 am
Certs:
Certified Awesome

Re: Cisco ACI

Tue May 06, 2014 11:00 am

I haven't chosen to "leave" - I'm just not directly affiliating my name and picture any longer. Now, what points am I supposedly dodging? What exactly are your points?

As far as who's deploying VXLAN? A lot of folks. Is it the most popular right now? Probably not, but there is a shift going on and I firmly believe it will be where most folks go in the DC in the future as most technologies that have a way of starting with the "big boys" and working it's way down. Arista believes this, and apparently so does Cisco. Which they should since they had a hand in creating it - it wasn't just VMWare. It was VMWare, Cisco, Arista, Citrix, and others: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-09

User avatar
Digitowel
Ultimate Member
Posts:
618
Joined:
Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:54 pm
Certs:
CCIE R&S, NP/DP/IP

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 6:53 am

Steven, you've seemingly purposefully disregarded many counter points that people have given you based upon your own questions and assertions. If it's not purposeful, it's rather easy to go back and address each point rather than ask people to restate their thoughts in an already exhaustive thread that's all but strayed from the original idea.
And actually I appreciate MS certified people quite a bit. Not in the " I wish I did what you did" kinda way, but in a "I'm glad you're doing that so I don't have to" kind way. - Infinite ca. 2010

killabee
Post Whore
Posts:
1474
Joined:
Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:52 pm
Certs:
CCNP, CCDA, JNCIA

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 7:40 am

You should leave this thread alone and move on to the next post and next question. This thread turned into a classic case of being not what was said, but how it was said, misunderstanding, perceived vendor favoritism/bashing, and some off-topic discussions in the mix that added more heat. Leave it as is and carry on. If there's still value in strictly talking about VXLAN, ACI, SDN, etc, open a new thread with those specific points.

PS: I'm glad you've stayed. Nothing wrong with a hard lesson learned.

User avatar
Netw0rx
Junior Member
Posts:
94
Joined:
Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 am
Certs:
Certified Awesome

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 9:53 am

Killa, you're absolutely right (as usual).

However, I don't want to give off the vibe that I'm purposely dodging things because I'm not - so I'm going to close the loop. Out of pure laziness I didn't respond or even read all points to be honest. I also didn't respond to a few things because I didn't want to stir up more drama.

So, I took the time to go through every single page and pull what I felt was a "point", and address it. This is the last post I'm making to this thread.

Can you post the examples (just session and page)?

I already have posted several examples.

What does Arista do that Cisco doesn't?

I've posted several examples of that as well.

What differentiates Arista?

Same as the previous two quotes

What is Arista's SDN solution?

I believe I've already covered that as well.

Agile ports is interesting, but how does it really work?

I provided an answer for that.

"Tap functionality seems nice on paper.."

Provided a response for that.

"I think the biggest differentiator is cost.."

Responded to that as well.

".... this is something else to learn in a huge massive stack to learn. 95% of us don't work for big Web2.0/cloud providers..."

Here's something I didn't address - and it wasn't intentional. I have no response for that - it is what it is. No one is using ACI right now, but the purpose of the thread was to discuss ACI - not what you're doing currently. Discussing ACI as a future technology also opens the door to discuss other future technologies, and to discuss what may happen to current conflicting technologies.

"The auto replacement thing is cool, but I wouldn't see that as the primary focus..."

Agree. It's a single tool in the SDN toolbox. It's the toolbox as a whole that holistically empowers engineers to spend more time on the golf course and less time putting hands on switches doing menial tasks.

"... the needs of the now outweight the needs of the future."

No argument there.

"..do you think you'd feel the same way if you were working for Cisco instead of Arista?"

I gave a 100% honest response to that.

"What features and functionality do you see as originally Arista's which Cisco has added?"

Provided a response for this.

"companies have been "borrowing" innovation technologies from each other for years, this is nothing new."

I responded that I agree with this.

"And poaching key employees from competitors."

If this was a point, I also agree.

I agree, if you can't back up your statement that they didn't develop it, but got it (copy/stole/borrowed/licensed/etc) elsewhere, then this isn't worth any more time

I responded to this as well regarding "Cisco" CLI. I agreed that I didn't "back up" my statement.

The first thing I want to address is why you feel that merchant silicon is such a good thing? I think using their own silicon is what differentiates Cisco. And saying that they can't figure out how to do it without the ALE is ridiculous. The ALE adds buffers and functionality, which is a plus, not a minus. Not every 9k card has ALEs, which also kind of negates your point. The ALE is a great addition, not a negative.

Merchant silicon is a good thing because the vendor doesn't have to have expensive dedicated staff and facilities in order to fabricate and program it. This means generally getting things to market much faster than competitors using custom silicon. It also breeds competition - any vendor has access to the same silicon that Arista does - Arista just does it better.

Custom silicon such as the ALE/ASE isn't "necessarily" a bad thing - the problem is now you're locked into proprietary technology. Also, my statement wasn't rediculous at all - what do you think ALE and ASE stand for? ACI Leaf Engine, and ACI Spine Engine - without their custom silicon, you don't have ACI. So yes, again, they can't figure out how to do it without custom silicon. Also, the ALE to my understanding provides buffers 'or' additional functionality (Could easily be a misunderstanding of perception). You can either operate the 9k in standalone mode which utilizes the ALE as an extra buffer space for the Network Forwarding Engine (NFE; the Trident II merchant silicon). It is my understanding that the ALE has to be run in ACI mode in order to leverage the "additional functionality".

I don't get why you're seemingly taking them catching up (to others as well, EOS isn't the only kid in class who is "extensible") as an insult though?

I should have left my personal feelings out of it, but again it was the "marketecture" of them repeatedly stating they are innovating that bothered me.

People like to talk about the evils of proprietary features and vendor lock-in, but I think most of that is bullshit.

That's your opinion. For myself, I don't really see the value in being locked-in anymore, any many people agree.

Cisco's proprietary features usually add value that the open standard equivalent is lacking. EIGRP for instance

What are most folks running for IGPs now-a-days?

My next (and last, I promise) example is more recent - FabricPath. AFAIK, Cisco was the first to ship any TRILL/L2MP (including SPB, I believe) technology. FP isn't open, and it's not TRILL-compatible, but it's better. There are features in FP that don't exist in TRILL (yet). That's a huge value for customers, IMO.

True - they were the first (I think?), and it helped make them some money, until competition came along and people started seeing the value in IP-based fabrics. I didn't think about this until recently, but I think the thing with Cisco is they didn't 'really' have competition in the DC before like they do now, so everyone pretty much took what they said as gospel. I think the very recent and drastic shift from the way Cisco did stuff in the past with the introduction of ACI and the 9k is evident of that.

I just wanted to point out that Cisco really does offer solid products and they're definitely ahead of the game a good percentage of the time.

I agree with the first part of that statement. The second to me is debateable (I'm not saying you're straight up wrong) - it's not hard to be a leader when you don't have real competition.

The vision that's been explained to me is that the 7K/5K/6K hardware is for people who don't want/need ACI. And, honestly, I think a lot of people will fall into that category. I don't think ACI is going to take over the world and I'm happy to stick with FP for now.

Also debateable. They also mentioned things like needing the 5k for FC and the 7k for MPLS - which those two things are kind of conflicting to me... I almost wondered if they're positioning the 7k to become an Enterprise product, but that doesn't make sense in combination with the 5k for FCoE. But yes, those who've invested in FP will likely stay with FP - likely because they already invested $$$/time/training in it - which often outweighs technical advantage.

A barebones API website looks similar? On no! And what format would you have gone for? It's a nav bar and forms...

Yes, I was nit-picking. It was just one more thing on the pile that made me laugh.

As for TRILL/L2MP tech, how many of your customers have deployed VXLAN? I know of none at all within my company, and it's been a significant amount of time since Arista announced support. I have, and know of, tons of FP users. I have customers looking at FP today, with no desire to use VXLAN in the foreseeable future. We can all (including random people at Cisco) try to predict what the main technology will be, but no one knows. Arista just ignored something that everyone else was at least talking about. And Arista's competing technology has gotten very little traction until recently... when VMWare and Cisco started talking about it.

I responded to this already, but I'll add further. While we're throwing around the vendor badge comments, let's put it all out there - don't you work for a Cisco Gold partner? That said, your viewpoint here is understandable. Sound rediculous? Then stop tying my opinions/viewpoints to who I work for.

(I'm even ignoring the OTV shot).

What "shot"? I quoted a Cisco Principal Engineer from a Cisco Live Presentation.

Not to troll more than I have here but you were asking some really obvious STP questions a few months ago and now you are the end all be all for SDN? You are a bit over your head in vendor pride bull shit.

I often ask really obvious questions to check my understanding. I also never stated that I am "the end all be all for SDN". That's your perception. I made direct comparisons to what Arista is doing today, and what Cisco is bringing to the table in the future. I didn't even talk about any other vendor.

When you work for a vendor, post under your real name, and make your affiliation with that vendor known - you're effectively representing them. Talk about what your company does well and don't speak negatively of your competition.

Agree. I should have just stuck to the facts and not let my emotions get involved. I apologize for the moment of weakness.

javentre
Post Whore
Posts:
1971
Joined:
Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 11:00 am

A few of my points were in there, thanks for closing the loop.
http://networking.ventrefamily.com

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9850
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 12:13 pm

Glad you didn't run away.

Merchant silicon is a good thing because the vendor doesn't have to have expensive dedicated staff and facilities in order to fabricate and program it. This means generally getting things to market much faster than competitors using custom silicon. It also breeds competition - any vendor has access to the same silicon that Arista does - Arista just does it better.

Custom silicon such as the ALE/ASE isn't "necessarily" a bad thing - the problem is now you're locked into proprietary technology. Also, my statement wasn't rediculous at all - what do you think ALE and ASE stand for? ACI Leaf Engine, and ACI Spine Engine - without their custom silicon, you don't have ACI. So yes, again, they can't figure out how to do it without custom silicon. Also, the ALE to my understanding provides buffers 'or' additional functionality (Could easily be a misunderstanding of perception). You can either operate the 9k in standalone mode which utilizes the ALE as an extra buffer space for the Network Forwarding Engine (NFE; the Trident II merchant silicon). It is my understanding that the ALE has to be run in ACI mode in order to leverage the "additional functionality".

So Arista does merchant silicon better than anyone? That sounds very objective. Care to elaborate?

How does manufacturer silicon lock someone into a proprietary solution? You're saying a Catalyst can't run open protocols? That's obviously false. If anything, it gives the customer more options. They can choose to run a completely open network, or a hybrid network utilizing the manufacturer-specific functionality that's not offered by the competition. I don't see any inherent lock-in simply due to proprietary ASICs.

I think you're splitting hairs on the "added functionality" bit. Yes, clearly ACI is the added functionality I'm referring to.


What are most folks running for IGPs now-a-days?

You left out the important part of my point: the evil proprietary solution (EIGRP) had a lot of benefits to customers that OSPF/RIP didn't offer. My point was that Cisco doesn't tend to offer proprietary solutions that do the same thing as their open counterparts, they offer a better option to their customers. Another thing, which I didn't mention before, is that Cisco tends to create something, add it to their own code, but then open it for everything, like tag switching (MPLS), WCCP, OTV, etc.

So, to summarize, yes, Cisco has some proprietary features, but they're usually better for many use cases than the open alternative. And they don't always (often?) keep them for themselves, they offer them to the community too.

To answer your question, I do (sadly) see a ton of networks running EIGRP currently - far more than OSPF. But the majority of networks I see are Cisco-heavy.


True - they were the first (I think?), and it helped make them some money, until competition came along and people started seeing the value in IP-based fabrics. I didn't think about this until recently, but I think the thing with Cisco is they didn't 'really' have competition in the DC before like they do now, so everyone pretty much took what they said as gospel. I think the very recent and drastic shift from the way Cisco did stuff in the past with the introduction of ACI and the 9k is evident of that.

I agree with the first part of that statement. The second to me is debateable (I'm not saying you're straight up wrong) - it's not hard to be a leader when you don't have real competition.

They haven't had competition? You may think that's a good argument, but it actually puts Arista (and others) in a bad light. Arista's been around since 2004 - ten years. So in all that time, they're just now becoming actual competition? That's a bit sad, no?

Your second statement addresses competition again, but I was speaking of networking as a whole, not just DC. Are you saying Cisco's never had any real competition in the entire networking space? That's a crock of shit.


Partner integration is an interesting one. I think it's a completely different scenario when you look at Cisco vs Arista partnerships. Arista does one thing while Cisco does countless things. I'm shocked they're partnering with direct competition at all, to be honest. Is Arista partnering with direct competition? Cisco has tons of integration with products outside of core r/s though (and maybe some within that I'm blanking on) - CUCM has a shitload of third party apps that integrate for various things, the ASA integrates with Websense, RSA, etc. So that's a pretty bunk argument, IMO.

I'm really glad you brought this up. I do work for a VAR who's a large/gold Cisco partner. What's interesting is that I'm actual able to say negative things about Cisco, as I have multiple times throughout this thread, while you're still on the Arista soapbox and haven't said one bad thing about any of their offerings. Is it because they're so niche that they do everything amazingly? Or is it that you truly are a kool-aid guzzling evangelist?

Also, both of the VARs I've worked for have sold vendors who compete with Cisco (Riverbed, F5, Palo Alto, Juniper, Arista, etc). I've steered many customers to another vendor when I feel that Cisco's offering isn't as good or lacks something that adds value for their use case. If nothing else has, this fact should more than prove I'm not a Cisco fanboy, and that's not what my comments here have been about.

One point of mine that you didn't address, which is something I think is important:
Vito_Corleone wrote:I responded to this already, but I'll add further. While we're throwing around the vendor badge comments, let's put it all out there - don't you work for a Cisco Gold partner? That said, your viewpoint here is understandable. Sound rediculous? Then stop tying my opinions/viewpoints to who I work for.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

User avatar
Netw0rx
Junior Member
Posts:
94
Joined:
Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 am
Certs:
Certified Awesome

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 1:48 pm

Ugh... why do you just insist on trolling this out Vito. This is getting into a semantics flame war at this point with no real value to anyone. A one-sided flame war at that.

So Arista does merchant silicon better than anyone? That sounds very objective. Care to elaborate?

Stop putting words where they aren't. If you're going to quote me, quote what I actually said. I said Arista does it better. What the exact details around that are left up to interpretation - you took it further by tacking on "than anyone". I guess what I was getting around to indirectly was I'm very much of the mindset of "let the best man win". I think Arista's choice to utilize merchant silicon reflects that as well, and a smart decision from the perspective of cutting costs and development time getting features and products to market. I'm not going to further elaborate on that.

How does manufacturer silicon lock someone into a proprietary solution? You're saying a Catalyst can't run open protocols? That's obviously false. If anything, it gives the customer more options. They can choose to run a completely open network, or a hybrid network utilizing the manufacturer-specific functionality that's not offered by the competition. I don't see any inherent lock-in simply due to proprietary ASICs.

I think you're splitting hairs on the "added functionality" bit. Yes, clearly ACI is the added functionality I'm referring to.

Again, putting words where they aren't. That comment was regarding the ALE/ASE - which is the custom ASICs that enable the ACI fabric, which is a proprietary solution. True, I see some value in the proprietary things Cisco has done, but it comes with the undertone that you must go with Cisco and no one else. Not everybody likes that idea. As far as ACI or anything else being a "better" solution, we'll see with time. I'm not going to argue it here.

They haven't had competition? You may think that's a good argument, but it actually puts Arista (and others) in a bad light. Arista's been around since 2004 - ten years. So in all that time, they're just now becoming actual competition? That's a bit sad, no?

Your second statement addresses competition again, but I was speaking of networking as a whole, not just DC. Are you saying Cisco's never had any real competition in the entire networking space? That's a crock of shit.

A couple of things about these statements. First of all, this is straight up troll status and vendor bashing at it's finest - kinda hypocritical. Second, you're putting words where they weren't yet again. Third, I am only going to further glorify this with the clarification that I believe Cisco hasn't had a lot of competition in the DC market until now. No further comments.

I'm really glad you brought this up. I do work for a VAR who's a large/gold Cisco partner. What's interesting is that I'm actual able to say negative things about Cisco, as I have multiple times throughout this thread, while you're still on the Arista soapbox and haven't said one bad thing about any of their offerings. Is it because they're so niche that they do everything amazingly? Or is it that you truly are a kool-aid guzzling evangelist?

Name calling? Really? Again, you're not staying on topic. Are there things I wish Arista did? Sure, like PoE for example as one of them - but their focus has been solely on the DC so it's understandable. They've seen where other vendors have went wrong when trying to spread a little too far so I think they've made a smart decision and it's working out pretty darn well for them. You can throw whatever label you want on it, like "niche", but it apparently works. That wasn't the point of the thread though.

One point of mine that you didn't address, which is something I think is important:

Actually I did address it:
As far as who's deploying VXLAN? A lot of folks. Is it the most popular right now? Probably not, but there is a shift going on and I firmly believe it will be where most folks go in the DC in the future as most technologies that have a way of starting with the "big boys" and working it's way down. Arista believes this, and apparently so does Cisco. Which they should since they had a hand in creating it - it wasn't just VMWare. It was VMWare, Cisco, Arista, Citrix, and others: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahali ... s-vxlan-09


EDIT - And regarding the other part of that point that I didn't address, if VXLAN didn't get a lot of traction, why would a giant like Cisco deem it appropriate to develop an entire product line and solution around it? Seems kind of silly from a business perspective. To me, it seems like Arista has been doing VXLAN for a while, and now Cisco sees the value in it and are following suite. Kind of opposite from the picture you put forth.
Last edited by Netw0rx on Wed May 07, 2014 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9850
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 1:57 pm

Sorry, I pasted the wrong thing that you didn't address, it was supposed to be this:
Partner integration is an interesting one. I think it's a completely different scenario when you look at Cisco vs Arista partnerships. Arista does one thing while Cisco does countless things. I'm shocked they're partnering with direct competition at all, to be honest. Is Arista partnering with direct competition? Cisco has tons of integration with products outside of core r/s though (and maybe some within that I'm blanking on) - CUCM has a shitload of third party apps that integrate for various things, the ASA integrates with Websense, RSA, etc. So that's a pretty bunk argument, IMO.


I'll reply to the rest shortly.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

User avatar
Netw0rx
Junior Member
Posts:
94
Joined:
Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 am
Certs:
Certified Awesome

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 2:06 pm

Gotcha - that kind of fell into the "stay on topic" bucket regarding ACI and the DC - I'm not talking about Enterprise. But actually, I can see where my blanket comment opened up that door. I'll retract that statement and say that was an overgeneralization. Fair?

User avatar
Netw0rx
Junior Member
Posts:
94
Joined:
Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 am
Certs:
Certified Awesome

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 2:08 pm

And honestly Vito - I've already disregarded Killa's advice enough.

I think I've spent more than a fair amount of time addressing points and discussing this. I refuse to let it be drug out further. You can add your rebuttal but I won't comment on it further. I'm seriously done with it.

User avatar
Vito_Corleone
Moderator
Posts:
9850
Joined:
Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
Certs:
CCNP RS, CCNP DC, CCDP, CCIP

Re: Cisco ACI

Wed May 07, 2014 2:39 pm

Ugh... why do you just insist on trolling this out Vito. This is getting into a semantics flame war at this point with no real value to anyone. A one-sided flame war at that.

You think I'm trolling you? I'll fully admit that I've gotten snarky as the thread progresses, but I think it's warranted considering that the more you post, the more it's clear that this thread was obviously started as an attempt to bash Cisco. Your nitpicking has also gotten me more irritated than usual. I'll try to be nicer, but I can't promise anything as I read through the rest of your post.


Stop putting words where they aren't. If you're going to quote me, quote what I actually said. I said Arista does it better. What the exact details around that are left up to interpretation - you took it further by tacking on "than anyone". I guess what I was getting around to indirectly was I'm very much of the mindset of "let the best man win". I think Arista's choice to utilize merchant silicon reflects that as well, and a smart decision from the perspective of cutting costs and development time getting features and products to market. I'm not going to further elaborate on that.

As for "putting words where they aren't", did you re-read your post? "any vendor has access to the same silicon that Arista does - Arista just does it better"

I guess you can call this a semantic argument, but the meaning seems pretty clear to me. You're almost explicitly saying that Arista does merchant silicon better than anyone.

I agree that it's smart for Arista to use merchant silicon considering their circumstances. I don't think anyone would dispute that. What I'm very clearly disagreeing with is your implication that building your own silicon is a bad thing, or that augmenting merchant silicon by adding custom silicon is somehow less innovative than using only merchant silicon.


Again, putting words where they aren't. That comment was regarding the ALE/ASE - which is the custom ASICs that enable the ACI fabric, which is a proprietary solution. True, I see some value in the proprietary things Cisco has done, but it comes with the undertone that you must go with Cisco and no one else. Not everybody likes that idea. As far as ACI or anything else being a "better" solution, we'll see with time. I'm not going to argue it here.

I guess I misunderstood you. My point was that the addition of the ALE is a good thing, not a negative. You didn't seem to agree, and said it's not "necessarily" bad, but locks you into a proprietary technology, which I completely disagree with. With or without ACI, you still get more with the ALE than if you didn't have it. Again, I feel like we're splitting hairs here.


A couple of things about these statements. First of all, this is straight up troll status and vendor bashing at it's finest - kinda hypocritical. Second, you're putting words where they weren't yet again. Third, I am only going to further glorify this with the clarification that I believe Cisco hasn't had a lot of competition in the DC market until now. No further comments.

This one got me, and nice dodge. You said Cisco hasn't had DC competition until recently. I pointed out that Arista (and others) have been around for quite awhile. How do you explain the lack of competition? This isn't vendor bashing, this is me asking you to clarify your statement. If you truly believe that haven't had any competition, then what's Arista, a company solely focused on the DC, been doing for the last ten years?


Name calling? Really? Again, you're not staying on topic. Are there things I wish Arista did? Sure, like PoE for example as one of them - but their focus has been solely on the DC so it's understandable. They've seen where other vendors have went wrong when trying to spread a little too far so I think they've made a smart decision and it's working out pretty darn well for them. You can throw whatever label you want on it, like "niche", but it apparently works. That wasn't the point of the thread though.

Did I hurt your feelings? Again, I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. You pointed out that I work for a big Cisco partner, implying that either I'm an evangelist or, if I'm not, then I shouldn't label you as one either based on where you work. That's a bad comparison seeing that so far you've had one bad thing to say about Arista, but then you circled back and said it doesn't matter because it's outside their focus. I think that only furthers my point that you have blinders on. Either that or Arista truly is perfect, which I find very hard to believe.


And regarding the other part of point that I didn't address, if VXLAN didn't get a lot of traction, why would a giant like Cisco deem it appropriate to develop an entire product line and solution around it? Seems kind of silly from a business perspective. To me, it seems like Arista has been doing VXLAN for a while, and now Cisco sees the value in it and are following suite. Kind of opposite from the picture you put forth.

This is a good point, but it isn't really what I was saying. My point was that VXLAN has been around for a while and I've not seen it deployed anywhere, and didn't hear much buzz around it until VMWare and Cisco started releasing products supporting it. Cisco's involvement in building it just takes more weight from arguments like this:
It bugs me that many of the things we do at Arista now are what Cisco will bring down the road and they call it innovation.



A couple things I want to add. I'm not sure how my posts come off, but I have nothing against Arista. I think they have a great offering and I'd love to play with some of their gear and get some customers interested. However, the tone (you've been with a vendor for a few months and now the vendor you've posted about and focused on for years is dogshit) of your posts really irked me. I think I'd feel the same way if a Cisco SE came in, made a thread about Palo Alto's AppID, and proceeded to nitpick it and talk about how PAN claims to be innovative because they took the idea of a PIX/ASA and added some new features onto it.

I understand that it helps to believe in your company's product, and I think it's great that you do. But, similar to what someone else posted, the way to drive interest to your product isn't to talk about what other vendors lack (unless asked by a customer), or to (seemingly) claim that your product existed first, and vendor x is just regurgitating things you've been doing forever. For the record, I think many Cisco employees do the same thing (and I end up in the same debate), but they usually do it in closed meetings, not public forums.
http://blog.alwaysthenetwork.com

PreviousNext

Return to Cisco Routing and Switching

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 169 guests