#FC vs #FCOE vs #iSCSI which is easier to setup?

Check out:

http://brasstacksblog.typepad.com/brass-tacks/2012/02/fc-and-fcoe-versus-iscsi-network-centric-versus-end-node-centric-provisioning.html

their conclusion...  

FC has the least amount of configuration
FCOE has the most amount of network configuration, but the least host
ISCSI has the most amount of host configuration, but  the least network

Even the #Simpsons think that #Cisco is a bit #rotten

http://packetlife.net/blog/2008/apr/6/cisco-simpsons/

#HPN Partner thinks that #MegWhittman #ROCKS

Rick is CEO Of CCCP in Green Bay, WI.  A great HPN partner!

#HPN is so #flattered by #Cisco

So Gartner is quite famous the last year for a report that discussed how a multi-vendor network is better for customers.

I guess Cisco is worried too many people are listening so they paid Deloitte to write a report that shows that you're better off.....

http://www.crn.com/news/networking/232601107/cisco-deloitte-multi-vendor-networks-a-roll-of-the-dice-for-customers.htm;jsessionid=mxpBl7obGqbL-9yP1qHmmg**.ecappj02

I think Chambers is better off if you buy from a single vendor...his:

- you get less innovation
- you get higher prices
- you get resellers that are all fighting for 2% margin and thus at the end of the day cant spend quality time with you the customer because they cant afford to
- you get locked in proprietary features and protocols


Yep...sounds like a big plus to me.

Is #FCOE just like #ATM #LANE ?

We've been through this before.  History does repeat itself...

You have a simple protocol, like Ethernet, but someone comes along and say, naw...we can make it better, lets take a protocol that is well known, works, and is simple and lets make it not only overly complicated..but we'll make it almost impossible to be inter-operable.  You want broadcast and multicast?  Yeah..we can give you that..but it probably wont work most of the time..because the underlying technology is inherently point to point.

If you grew up in your networking career in the 2000's.. you probably missed that one. Thats ok... we're in the middle of the next overly complex technology, FCOE.  Yes, take a very simple, proven technology that is deployed all of the place. Well known.  Then stick it on top of another technology that doesn't inherently support  some of the basics things the other one does.  Namely... being lossless, consistent latency, loopfree, and the ability to multipath.

Sure, we there ways we can get around these issues..but low and behold... they are not inter-operable.

The problem with FCOE as well, as it doesn't inherently change anything.  It doesn't give me more bandwidth, it doesn't speed up my storage, and it doesn't help me with the cloud or with multiple data centers.

Dont mess with this decade's LANE..it will leave you burned.

The world's smallest #violin is now playing for #Cisco

wah wah

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/15/cisco_eu_complaint_microsoft_skype/

Can you believe it?  The company that forever has played games of vendor lockout utilizing all kinds of proprietary protocols like:   PVST, PVST+, RPVST+, EIGRP, IGRP, ISL, VTP, OTV, FabricPath, SCCP  is now crying foul.

Wah Wah

Whats even funnier is that Cisco/Tandberg has had video products that used SCCP...which, of course, is proprietary.  Cisco's telepresence system is of course proprietary.   Webex, which offers video as well as voice/web is also proprietary.  I've never seen it interop with another web platform.

Wah Wah

#Cisco complains of #vendor #lockout against #Microsoft

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/15/cisco_eu_complaint_microsoft_skype/