Joe,
You're the network expert, so you should be ranting
and raving about these technical aspects to us. I still
have a lot to learn.
Okay, I will rant more frequently in the future <G>
This is the impression I've been coming to lately. Since I'm
not a networking expert, I was Luled somewhat myself. But,
the CSCO folks can't be lulled too much. All they need to do
is go to the COMS web site and look at the products, right?
Of course, their "killer" products haven't been web posted
yet...but people in the know can tell.
Just because they know doesn't mean they want to acknowledge it. Look at the MPU market. Intel was saying for a year that the Sub $1,000 PC market didn't exist, or that it was a fad. Just because you know what your competition can do, if you are big and cocky (Intel, CSCO, etc.) you have a tendancy to figure "well we'll just throw some $$ at the problem and make it go away". I've seen it before. With CSCO's position, they really have nowhere to go but down. I mean when you are #1 there aren't any spots above you to climb to.
BTW...Did you notice that acquisition that FORE made was
for a company that is into the Gigabit Ethernet Lans?
Yes, but the whole point is FORE _had_ to acquire a company. They didn't have the know-how in house to do it themselves. After a while acquiring everyone you need to get something done gets too costly to continue. (not to mention what it can do to a stock price).
This
is COMS strong suit coming up stongly in the next year. FORE
wants to integrate their WAN ATM with the Gig. Eth. LAN systems.
Yeah, FORE _WANTS_ to integrate, COMS _HAS_ integrated the 2. Big different. If I need a convenient ATM + GBE solution, COMS is where I go today.
Interesting. I read that they stated the demand in this
area is driving them there, and there is a need to have
more proficiency in linking the WAN and LAN areas together
when the speeds get up into the Gigabit levels.
Plus, FORE has to have a better product variety to survive.
ATM is not enough.
In a nutshell, YES ;-)
Seems like lots of folks eventually follow COMS strategic moves:
1) Small and Medium size enterprises
2) Cable Modems and xDSL
3) Gigabit Ethernet LAN systems
4) Switch Routers
5) VOIP in the LAN system
6) Videoconferencing
Tell me if I'm wrong, but IMO COMS has been touting these
things the longest and most forcefully. I'm sure I've missed
a few more also.
Yeah Joe, you left out a big one. The next logical step for DTV is over IP/ATM. Why should I have seperate protocols, equipment and transmission lines for these. It makes no sense. and DTV will use a _LOT_ of bandwith (read many Core BUilders ;-) )
ATM is one area I've noticed COMS getting into, but I don't
think I've heard them described as "tops" in this area. I thought
they're just trying to have a presence. FORE
I have heard described as "tops"...but problem with FORE is they
depend on ATM to much, it seems.
No, COMS ATM products are better than FORE's. FORE just has a wider range of products at this time. FORE's biggest problem is there lack of other solutions. People like top to bottom solutions when building something. It guarantees interoperability. The top to bottom solutions are very improtant.. and right now, ONLY 3COM can take you from 20GB/s a second right down to 10base-T into your 386 mail server. No one else has nearly as broad a product offering.. For this reason and this reason alone COMS has an advantage.
Top to bottom is very important for big companies that don't want to worry about the "details".
Also, how sure are you that ATM is the de facto protocol of
the next generation backbones for VOIP? I get the impression
that there is still some time for decision makers to make
up their minds and possibly something better comes along?
Joe, ATM is the only solution that makes sense now. I don't even see anything else that is viable right now. So we'll just say ATM will win. Don't forget that now that everyone is getting into ATM, there is less interest to come out with something new.
Either way, COMS is right to have to have a toe hold in there,
plus they have the knowledge of bridging the WAN with the LAN
areas which is what FORE is trying to do as far as I understand
things.
Just think top to bottom like I said.
>>I have heard many people wonder why IPv6 is so wide (something like 80 billion
valid addresses)...<<
Not too long after IPv6 gets in the swing of things, they will
need an IPv8. 80 IP addresses won't be enough for me. I myself,
will need a few hundred:-), and there will be more than 1 Billion
users in 10-20 years.
Joe you only need 1 or 2 and then a nice firewall product.. probably comprised of a COMS router and then some 1000base switching hubs through-out your house (COMS again), and then 1000base COMS nics in your pc's.
>>Every COMS product is better that every CSCO product I
have used (where direct comparisons are possible) by a factor
of 2 or 3. Easier to setup, easier to maintain, fewer failures,
better support, cheaper price. What more is there to offer.<<
Do you think this might be because of the "John Chambers"
leadership? I think he's a great CEO, but he doesn't come
from a computer networking background. He's an MBA Lawyer
with high level executive experience at IBM and elsewhere's.
He's great at creating relationships and serving customers.
But somebody has to be around to have the vision of where
the technology is going to be in 5 years from now. Eric B.
though could use some of Chamber's ability to rack up
Billion $ contracts. I think he's developing it, but the
sooner the better, or get some help on this.
I think a lot of it has to do with the traditional differences in their 2 historical markets. COMS stuff _HAD_ to be easy to use. CSCO's stuff was used by the "strange network guy".. you know the guy that lived in the basement and only showered once every 3 months. He would come upstairs and chant over the equipment, maybe sacraficing a chicken or got and then go back downstairs to eat insects ;-)
Steve
(One more rant to add to the list ;-) )
|
