Standardization: Extreme vs Cisco

[MasterRacker]

I posted this in the Compatible Networking Solutions forum, but that is a very low traffic area, so I thought I'd try here as well:

I've inherited a distributed network that is using a number of different brands of routers, switches, etc. I have LANs in a number of buildings interconnected by either fiber or managed T1s. Given some budget over the next couple of years, I want to try and homogenize the network.

If you were building a network from the ground up would you prefer to use Extreme or Cisco equipment and why?

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[kmcferrin]

Cisco.

I think that Cisco has great reliability and a very good support organization. Not only that, but they have a wide variety of options for support with various SLAs depending on what you need. Not only that, but they have one of the largest worldwide distribution and support networks. If you have to support hardware in multiple regions, they can manage that without issue.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA 2003

 

[kmcferrin]

Oh, I forgot the biggest point: finding qualified engineers. There are far more people in the world who know how to install and manage Cisco gear than there are for Extreme. If the time comes for you to hire someone to manage the network (or you leave and your employer needs to hire someone) you'll have far more luck finding people who know Cisco products.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA 2003

 

[aarenot]

Consider cost, and time to complete the project due to the cost constraints versus your budget.

 

[rolm9751]

Cisco
I have delt with both - and Cisco is the way to go for all of the reasons stated above.

My main reasons:

Reliability
Scalability
support

 

[chiph]

Is the non-homogenous network causing you problems?
If not, declare that for any end-of-life equipment replacements, you're going with your new vendor of choice.

No need to spend big money on hardware that is meeting your needs, and will continue to do so for the near future.

You could probably use that money elsewhere -- adding redundancy, cable plant improvements, a test system to make sure your backups can actually be restored, etc.

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[MasterRacker]

chip,
I actually plan to use your method, but I still have to choose a vendor, which is the real question. We do have some needs that aren't necessarily being met, but don't have the budget for a forklift upgrade. Long-term a homogenous network is going to be a little easier to set up active monitoring/management.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[jimbojimbo]

The question really boils down to effort and value. If you have a single vendor network such as Cisco then you only have to learn one vendors products. The trade off may be quality, cost, and functionality. You need to really address the network from an overall architectural viewpoint. Cisco fanatics typically will say they have standardized on EIGRP for routing so you can't put anything else in the network. This tells me that they are simply lazy and don't want to actually learn something new. EIGRP Areas with OSPF and quality summarization is a viable option. IPv6 implementations are going to be real interesting for these individuals.

Cisco historically has been the market leader but has really failed to embrace open standards. Like Microsoft they tout "innovation" which really means proprietary.

For me a significant gage is to look at the RFC's and see who is doing what. Take MPLS. Cisco may have done some work but looking at the RFC's it appears Juniper made it work (from a QoS standpoint).

Cisco wants you to buy into the mantra "voice is just another application on the network" which shows how little they really understand about voice.

What platform are you using for voice. If it is a Cisco Call Manager then maybe Cisco is the way to go since Cisco integrates with their equipment. If it is Avaya then I suggest looking at Extreme/Juniper. Avaya has done some nice integration with the Juniper routers and Extreme Epicenter products. If your long term goal is to look at SIP then I suggest looking at the various vendors supporting SIP gateways/gatekeepers before fixating on your data vendor.

You may want to look at keeping Cisco at the backbone/distribution level but use Extreme or Foundry or HP at the access level. From a price perspective every report I have seen shows Cisco costing anywhere from 50% to 100% more than other vendors ports.

Look at reviews from respected sources. Channel Web listed the Extreme Summit X250 Series switches in the "26 Alternate Products VARs Should Know".

 

[Johnthephoneguy]

I don't buy into the whole Cisco "reliability" factor.

I work at a bank. We have about 300 branches, each with its own Cisco router. On average we replace 1 router per week. Most of the time it is a faulty power supply (faster and easier for us to change the entire router, bring it back then troubleshoot) but not always.

They are contemplating replacing Nortel PBX and Norstars with VOIP with Cisco. When they looked at how often the Cisco stuff has to be replaced they shelved the idea.

For the money, Cisco just doesn't hold up well enough in my opinion.

JohnThePhoneGuy

"If I can't fix it, it's not broke!

 

[kmcferrin]

Interesting. I've never had a failure on Cisco hardware. What models were you having issues with? When you get so many dead PSUs it is usually an issue of not having clean power to the unit. Remote offices are notorious for not using line conditioning.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA:Security 2003

 

[aarenot]

An easy way to make a GENERAL judgement on clean power issues is that all of the equipment that is at the site is on the same dity power if it is dirty power. If it is dirty power then which is the issue, it should not be just one brand of unit which has its PSU's effected by the dirty power. If you have all the PSU's having issues look for a dirty power issue right off, if not look at something else first. Unless of course the brand you are using is more succeptible to power issues, which then again is a downfall of that brand.

I am not a particular Cisco fan or opponent, but I do not think they are as good as their name, or price, especially their support. For Voice, I have less respect, but then I have been doing voice for 15 years so they are newer to voice than I am so they may need to catch up yet. I think Juniper is under rated for its quality, and support, but that may just be the guys I have worked with.

 

[MasterRacker]

Glad to see some more debate building here. My system is using Avaya phone equipment. At the moment it's digital phones with IP links between the buildings (except for 1 where we are experimenting with IP phones). We have Cisco, Extreme and Avaya switches currently. As the switches get retired I want to buy just one brand to replace/expand/upgrade. We have a couple of external consultants, one has Cisco expertise and one knows Extreme and those are the only 2 brands under consideration.

From what I've seen here and elsewhere, when you add in VoIP, the positives seem to lean to Extreme. This is the kind of debate I was hoping for. Thanks.

_____
Jeff
[small][purple]It's never too early to begin preparing for [/purple]International Talk Like a Pirate Day
"The software I buy sucks, The software I write sucks. It's time to give up and have a beer..." - Me[/small]

 

[aarenot]

Working for a third party gives you a bit different perspective.
While having only one equipment providor may reduce the scope of training required to support your equipment it also reduces the amount of training required to support your equipment.
This may sound like I am being repetitive, but think of it from another point of view. That providor knows the cost involved to retrain your staff to support another providors equipment, and therefore does not really have to do anyhting except not exceed that cost in the price increases, or ectras it charges for equipment, support, training, etc., etc. You are pigeon holing yourself in, and they know it as well as you do. So, why not keep some variety if only on a certain level or in a certain division, site type, etc., so you keep the skill set diversity in house.
From a personal point of view it reduces the scope of training which you will need, and therefore get in order to support your equipment, so scratch off the experience, and training in other providors equipment section in your resume.
Of the providors of equipment mentioned it seems Cisco is the only one seriously trying to oppose open standards.

 

[gbaughma]

I don't pretend to be a cisco guru... quite the opposite, in fact... I have to research/fight/muddle my way through the simplest of changes.

But I will say this...

I have had several cisco routers running for the last 9 years at my workplace, and I don't even think about them. They, in general, never die.

Keeping in mind, they are also on UPS's, so that I *know* they don't suffer brownouts/spikes/etc. which I think is important, especially when all of our traffic gets handled by that one rack.

I think the issue in general with IP phones is this: People either don't have gear that supports QOS, or they have not set up QOS properly. Without QOS, IP phones are subject to any other network bottleneck or slowdown.

I installed an 1800 series router with the new cisco IOS at a remote site. The customer wanted to do his own web/e-mail server, and also have the ability to VPN in from home. Well, it arrived and I was *totally* over my head in setting up a router from scratch, especially to do all that.

I got Cisco on the phone (they returned my call within 15 minutes of generating a ticket online), walked me step-by-step through allowing them access into the router, and had the whole thing configured in minutes. Once it was configured, I could make minor changes as needed.

On the few occasions where I have had problems with my cisco gear, I have been able to call Cisco and have it resolved same day.

So, from my own experience, the hardware is reliable, and the service is great. I always look at equipment as a 50/50 situation... 50% product, and 50% service. You can have a great product, but if you can't get service on it, you're boned. Same goes the other way; you can have great service, but if it's a crappy cheap product to begin with, you're still in trouble.



Just my 2¢
-Cole's Law: Shredded cabbage

--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com