In which I look at CARP vs VRRP, the nature of open standards and closed source fibre optic connectors that you pay royalties on, but you probably don’t know about.
I’m responding to Brad Hedlund’s post “On optimizing traffic for network virtualization” where he seems to missed a key point. It’s about cost of ownership in terms of ability to troubleshoot.
I was reading this research paper “European Research on Future Internet Design” and was struck by this diagram….
I resent the fact that Cisco partners get more information than Customers on Cisco’s website. Shows you who Cisco thinks the Customer really is.
What special powers do resellers have that makes them more effective ?
How does withholding information from Customers give a better outcome ?
Me ? Many resellers are not competent enough to be business and need a headstart to be useful to customers. Without some sort of “special needs” assistance, they wouldn’t be in the race.
Too harsh ? IBM and HP don’t rely on resellers to win business. Why does Cisco ?
VMware has made several strategic moves to implement dynamic networking – vSwitch, vDS, Nexus 1000 (in partnership with Cisco), vCloud External Networks (using MAC in MAC of all things) and have basically failed to deliver overlay technology without implementing technology in the network itself. Equally, VMware hasn’t been willing to engage with the networking vendors to develop technologies that would solve this problem – VNtag / VEPA/ VEP combined with TRILL / SPBB, instead letting them argue amongst themselves. VMware attempt with vCloud networking using MACinMAC encapsulation seems to have failed and stalled and is getting another attempt using MACinIP. VMware/Xen/HyperV are all desperate to have a more dynamic network that can be controlled from their software and this might be where OpenFlow gets a big lift – as a configuration engine.