x
Optical/IP

Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative

Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) representatives peeked into Juniper Networks Inc.'s (Nasdaq: JNPR) Infranet Initiative for the first time last week, apparently to tell them to cut it out.

Cisco officials confirm the company sent two ambassadors to the Infranet Initiative Council (IIC) meeting held in France early this week. Their goal was "to push the council into moving the activities into the standards bodies, which is where we've always maintained these kinds of activities belong," a Cisco spokesman states.

They were not there to sign up for the Infranet club. "They made their point, but as far as any implications of Cisco joining, we have always said we have no interest," the spokesman says.

The Infranet is Juniper's vision of a highly intelligent Internet, one that can deliver the appropriate quality of service (QOS), reliability, and security based on knowing who is connecting and in what context. The goal is to make advanced services a reality, and getting there will require input from equipment vendors, software experts, and service providers.

The IIC, chartered with figuring out how to make this work, started out with a Juniper-centric membership that included the company's resellers and key customers. It has since broadened to include about 20 carriers -- but still no Cisco, and some observers have wondered if that's a handicap (see Juniper's Infranet Takes Baby Steps).

Cisco didn't send lightweights to the meeting. Monique Morrow is a CTO consulting engineer with Cisco and is actively involved in MPLS standards. And Suraj Shetty, director of marketing for Cisco's routing technology group, handles Cisco's current hot property, the CRS-1 core router (see Cisco Test Finds the Spotlight and Cisco Scores CRS-1 Customers).

On the surface, the IIC doesn't seem insulted by Cisco's suggestion. "The IIC continues to welcome Cisco Systems and feels its participation would be in the best interest of the industry and global business," an IIC spokesman says.

In fact, Juniper officials maintain that the IIC is all about standards. The group's goal, they say, is to kickstart ideas that would later be submitted to standards bodies, meaning the end-result Infranet wouldn't be the purview of some exclusive club.

Not good enough, Cisco says. A full-standards approach is needed to "draw on a very diverse set of expert opinions," the spokesman says.

— Craig Matsumoto, Senior Editor, Light Reading




For further education, visit the archives of related Light Reading Webinars:

<<   <   Page 2 / 2
myhui 12/5/2012 | 3:25:45 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative infranet_rulz, if you personally laughed at Pradeep's Infranet proposal, then I guess you must not be a very forward-looking engineer then. A few engineers left at JNPR were (and still are) forward-looking, thank goodness. I also worked with many others there who were not forward-looking at all, but still got the job done and helped the Co. recognize revenue. Obviously, I also thank those engineers as well.

You should be thankful that the Infranet exists publicly, for the benefit of your next employer, when you are seeking employment at your next job.

A forum like the Infranet used to be conducted privately, between large companies whose combined market share approached 90%.

The marketing types didn't laugh because they sensed that it may be a tough sell to some of the engineers present, seeing the hostile / adolescent reaction from some of them.
signmeup 12/5/2012 | 3:25:43 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative materialgirl,

you stated that if what we had before (csco) didn't deliver then we need to look at someone else. My question to you is: At what point in time has technology *EVER* delivered what it promises? Why do we have DOS attacks, viruses, and poor jitter/latency characteristics on the Internet? Because evolution (in this case, evolution of the Internet) continually outpaces out ability to deliver. Frankly the problem isn't with hardware built 10 years ago, its that we continue to push beyond its limits. 10 years ago if you wanted QoS you deployed ATM, not IP.
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 3:25:43 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative Honestly,
You must be a real loser with the girls to have to our waste our time venting your incredibly immature hostility to total strangers on Lightreading message boards. You can do all of us a favor and grow up. It is always losers with nothing to add who get angry at me for existing. Well, sorry. I am not going anywhere.

Meanwhile, were we talking about networks or not? Your CSCO gibberish is nonsense. What exactly is your point? Do you think CSCO offers us all we need or don't you? What is your point about payback? Try some punctuation and spell checks while you are at it.
Honestly 12/5/2012 | 3:25:41 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative Venting, punctuation and spell checks. Ya right, look who's running her mouth.

Cisco offers customers what they do not need. Over priced, over engineered, over gown IOS code, or what now, 4 operating systems.

They have seen the day and cannot figure out how to grow. What will they buy next, a car company.?
infranet_rulz 12/5/2012 | 3:25:40 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative Another failed idea from Pradeep. I do not know what he is smoking, but it must be something strong. His rationale was that carriers wanted an alternative to Cisco in the soho router market and it is a $4 billion market. Assuming 20% market share in the first year of introduction it is $1 billion in business for juniper in 04-05 time frame. That is complete nonsense and no wonder they had to go buy netscreen.

He is still living in bubble along with his mentor Vinod and just throws out dumb ideas at engineers and then go play with the expensive toys he acquired.
tsat 12/5/2012 | 3:25:39 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative
you all deserve this so much:

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/i...

-tsat
russ4br 12/5/2012 | 3:25:36 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative Cisco offers customers what they do not need. Over priced, over engineered, over gown IOS code, or what now, 4 operating systems.

Juniper has at least 3 different operating systems ... JUNOS for M/T (and you might count the JUNOS J-variant as a separate train/variant) ... JUNOSe for ERX ... and the ScreenOS ...

If Juniper happens to buy a switching company, guess what? ... a 4th operating system!

And they haven't proved very successful in integrating OS in the past ... a proof point would be the Pacific Broadband CMTS ... which after almost 2 yrs. of effort, they were not able to have JUNOS running in that box (which was the original idea) ... they rather got rid of the whole thing.

-russ
gottappp 12/5/2012 | 3:25:34 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative That Cisco showed up to say "we'll never join and you're wasting your time" is significant. Why bother? The infranet idea must be a real threat to Cisco's M.O, otherwise they could continue to ignore it, right?
andropat 12/5/2012 | 3:25:31 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative russ4br,

First the cmts was NEVER originally supposed to have JUNOS. It was positioned as a best-in-class L2 solution with a best-in-class L3 solution (an M/T) behind it. Cisco then sold the idea of an L3 CMTS and Juniper at that time backpeddled to integrate JUNOS into the CMTS. At that point after a qtr. or two of engineering they decided to depart from that market.

On the other front, Juniper in my opinion is doing the right thing by leaving all products running their original OSes. The E-Series runs JUNOS-E which those customers deploying it (pre-juniper) know well. Same goes for the screenOS stuff and the JUNOS-M/T stuff. Not sure I understand how that compares to cisco which takes every product and IOSes it to death but with all kinds of differences in CLI config across a bunch of products, features, etc.,

Pat
russ4br 12/5/2012 | 3:25:22 AM
re: Cisco Heckles Infranet Initiative (...) Juniper in my opinion is doing the right thing by leaving all products running their original OSes. (...) Not sure I understand how that compares to cisco which takes every product and IOSes it to death but with all kinds of differences in CLI config across a bunch of products, features, etc.,

Maybe having different OSes is not much of a problem for Juniper today (although they _do_ have 3 OSes, which was my original point)...

It might prove a challenge in the future: Juniper has a higher R&D investment as a percentage of total costs than CSCO. Part of this added cost comes from developing sw/hw for completely different platforms, different support organizations, etc. Leveraging software/hardware development across platforms should reduce R&D costs, and facilitate things like having a single/integrated NMS, etc.

-russ
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE