<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cisco Is Wishfully Wishing for FCoE Sales ?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://etherealmind.com/cisco-wishing-for-fcoe-sales/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://etherealmind.com/cisco-wishing-for-fcoe-sales/</link>
	<description>Network design, architecture, thinking, working. Tech.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 13:24:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omar Sultan</title>
		<link>http://etherealmind.com/cisco-wishing-for-fcoe-sales/#comment-905</link>
		<dc:creator>Omar Sultan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etherealmind.com/?p=1401#comment-905</guid>
		<description>Greg:

Not sophistry--the intent was not to deceive, but to educate.  There are a lot of assertions running around about FCoE, so my goal was a fair and accurate representation of where things stand.  If someone chooses to go the FCoE route, I&#039;d like them to make an informed decision.  Every customer has different requirements and I&#039;d rather give them data and let them balance risk/reward then make a decision for them.

As for the future of FCoE..well, we will just have to see....until the story plays itself out, I am sure we will continue to have an interesting conversation.

Have a good Friday,

Omar</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg:</p>
<p>Not sophistry&#8211;the intent was not to deceive, but to educate.  There are a lot of assertions running around about FCoE, so my goal was a fair and accurate representation of where things stand.  If someone chooses to go the FCoE route, I&#8217;d like them to make an informed decision.  Every customer has different requirements and I&#8217;d rather give them data and let them balance risk/reward then make a decision for them.</p>
<p>As for the future of FCoE..well, we will just have to see&#8230;.until the story plays itself out, I am sure we will continue to have an interesting conversation.</p>
<p>Have a good Friday,</p>
<p>Omar</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Ferro</title>
		<link>http://etherealmind.com/cisco-wishing-for-fcoe-sales/#comment-904</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Ferro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etherealmind.com/?p=1401#comment-904</guid>
		<description>Ah, sophistry.

FCOE might be ready in 3 months IF Brocade doesn&#039;t stonewall you. Given that originally you said Sept 2008 the track record isn&#039;t good. 

And don&#039;t forget that the IEEE isn&#039;t moving quickly on CEE which is equally vital for FCoE to get acceptance. 

Waiting for a standard to be done is ALWAYS worthwhile. I have been screwed too many times to move without the standards. 

I still believe that FCoE will not cross the gap and will be a dead end technology except as a legacy migration technology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, sophistry.</p>
<p>FCOE might be ready in 3 months IF Brocade doesn&#8217;t stonewall you. Given that originally you said Sept 2008 the track record isn&#8217;t good. </p>
<p>And don&#8217;t forget that the IEEE isn&#8217;t moving quickly on CEE which is equally vital for FCoE to get acceptance. </p>
<p>Waiting for a standard to be done is ALWAYS worthwhile. I have been screwed too many times to move without the standards. </p>
<p>I still believe that FCoE will not cross the gap and will be a dead end technology except as a legacy migration technology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Omar Sultan</title>
		<link>http://etherealmind.com/cisco-wishing-for-fcoe-sales/#comment-903</link>
		<dc:creator>Omar Sultan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://etherealmind.com/?p=1401#comment-903</guid>
		<description>Greg:

Sadly, I am not &quot;chief&quot; anything--my wife will tell you that!

As far as FCoE is concerned, what you term &quot;rushing to market&quot; could just as easily be termed establishing a leadership position--which is currently forcing folks like Brocade and Juniper to play catch-up.  After all, Nuova was established back in 2005, so its not like this is something we did on a whim.  So nervous?  No, not in the least.

And the point of the post, which you so artfully avoided, was that FCoE is a lot further along than some folks, including you, apparently,  would have people believe--we expect FCoE to be finalized by June--3 months from now.

Finally, I did not say &quot;standards&quot; don&#039;t matter, anywhere.  What I did say is that 1) the standard has progressed to the point that if someone invests now, they are not going to be selling the switch on eBay in a year because the final standard made the switch obsolete, 2) as related standards firm up, we will update our switches to be compliant, and 3) from a practical perspective, the standard, any standard, will continue to evolved and change, which is a good thing--we are not baking a cake here--there is no point when it is &quot;done&quot;.

So, Greg, I know we are on different side of the FCoE fence, but, as always, I appreciate the conversation.

Regards,

Omar</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg:</p>
<p>Sadly, I am not &#8220;chief&#8221; anything&#8211;my wife will tell you that!</p>
<p>As far as FCoE is concerned, what you term &#8220;rushing to market&#8221; could just as easily be termed establishing a leadership position&#8211;which is currently forcing folks like Brocade and Juniper to play catch-up.  After all, Nuova was established back in 2005, so its not like this is something we did on a whim.  So nervous?  No, not in the least.</p>
<p>And the point of the post, which you so artfully avoided, was that FCoE is a lot further along than some folks, including you, apparently,  would have people believe&#8211;we expect FCoE to be finalized by June&#8211;3 months from now.</p>
<p>Finally, I did not say &#8220;standards&#8221; don&#8217;t matter, anywhere.  What I did say is that 1) the standard has progressed to the point that if someone invests now, they are not going to be selling the switch on eBay in a year because the final standard made the switch obsolete, 2) as related standards firm up, we will update our switches to be compliant, and 3) from a practical perspective, the standard, any standard, will continue to evolved and change, which is a good thing&#8211;we are not baking a cake here&#8211;there is no point when it is &#8220;done&#8221;.</p>
<p>So, Greg, I know we are on different side of the FCoE fence, but, as always, I appreciate the conversation.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Omar</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: etherealmind.com @ 2012-05-22 20:42:48 by W3 Total Cache -->
