@ geekhole; Dont be too hard on Basil. The industry is moving VERY fast! Standing behind "you need/ don't need" statement forever is unwise & possibly incompetent.
@Yarn; Agreed. Entirely predictable from Cisco. They were hardly likely to fall over backwards with there legs in the air, now where they?
Getting sucked into a numbers debate is futile nonsense. The only relevance is in relation to the actual network deployment, service mix & operational reqs. Everything else = Waste of time + mental masturbation.
The inter-connection point is accurate, but am disappointed that Luc Cueppens has given his usual treeline view. The inter-connect is very relevant because every single unit is essentially dead space or pure cost, In a data-centre anything that cannot either directly drive & demonstrably reduce cost is subject to intense scrutiny. (Space, power & support all been at a premium.)
Basil's comments about the past are also a straight diversion. This is not 2004. If your going to announce that you have a new "core" vehicle and story to the market place, then you need to be put under a spotlight. The volume of traffic that the next generation of core networks will have to enable is significantly different to any previous generation or challenge.
Interesting times.. ahead for Alu, Cisco, Juniper & Huawei. They are all that's left in this space, so the fireworks are certainly going to be entertaining! ;)
Looks like Cisco has gone in full fledged FUD mode to try and contain this puppy.
The need to go beyond a basic XRS-40 system is a lot less urgent since it delivers the equivalent of a 10 chassis CRS-3 deployment. And Cisco's 20 x 10G card is oversubscribed. 140G per slot is the max (14x10).
Anyway, not sure what mr Alwan was expecting from Cisco instead. Congratulations?
Not sure ALU ever said core routers are not needed. More likely they said they don't do core routers - they always said the edge was more interesting. I'd like to see any justification they said core is not needed.
You are correct on CSCO, JNPR, ALU, HW are the major vendors on edge/core routing. Just curious what was happening at Brocade (Foundry), Ericcson and Tellabs, are these "router players" pretty much dead or marginalized from the market place?
You are so correct. In the past, if you asked Cisco about a competitor product, the stock answer was that Cisco does not comment on other vendor products. Now it's a pissing match cause Cisco is feeling the heat in the high-end of the router market.
Cisco is the dominate core router player with the most to lose. I wouldn't lose much sleep until AlcLu starts winning or dispalying Cisco core routers. The core branding is silly, it's always about $$.
"How many of the competitors you have asked us about have maintained sustainable market share from Cisco?"
Hmm - lets think, didn't Cisco say something similar when Alcatel-Lucent launched into the edge router market, and now they are almost number 1 against Cisco.
Alcatel-Lucent never said you didn't need a core router, they just didn't sell one (but have resold Juniper in a number of guises over the years.
Bit ironic Cisco is pointing to a '10 year old' operating system, considering they are still using the same 30 year old OS that is starting to creak at the seams
The statement about Cisco "using the same 30 year old OS" is wrong. Both CRS and ASR9000 run IOS-XR, which is quite different than IOS classic. IOS-XR is a good piece of software, and everyone using it agrees its stability, performance and reliability are remarkable. Getting "real" in-service upgrade is not an easy thing, and it can be done in XR, as well as stopping individual routing processes, for example. It compares very well against JunOS, which in turn has many other good (or better) things. Don't get into the discussion about the hardware, but I think is fair to point that.
Of course this was inevitable.
@ geekhole; Dont be too hard on Basil. The industry is moving VERY fast! Standing behind "you need/ don't need" statement forever is unwise & possibly incompetent.
@Yarn; Agreed. Entirely predictable from Cisco. They were hardly likely to fall over backwards with there legs in the air, now where they?
Getting sucked into a numbers debate is futile nonsense. The only relevance is in relation to the actual network deployment, service mix & operational reqs. Everything else = Waste of time + mental masturbation.
The inter-connection point is accurate, but am disappointed that Luc Cueppens has given his usual treeline view. The inter-connect is very relevant because every single unit is essentially dead space or pure cost, In a data-centre anything that cannot either directly drive & demonstrably reduce cost is subject to intense scrutiny. (Space, power & support all been at a premium.)
Basil's comments about the past are also a straight diversion. This is not 2004. If your going to announce that you have a new "core" vehicle and story to the market place, then you need to be put under a spotlight. The volume of traffic that the next generation of core networks will have to enable is significantly different to any previous generation or challenge.
Interesting times.. ahead for Alu, Cisco, Juniper & Huawei. They are all that's left in this space, so the fireworks are certainly going to be entertaining! ;)