Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Lucent Technologies (LU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Curtis E. Bemis who wrote (3792)	8/25/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21876

Curtis, Thank you for that critique and your opinion. But you indicate that I gave misleading information. If I gave misleading info, then I apologize to all, but I submit that we are saying the same thing, only differently. The points you made are, IMO, duly mindful of CSCO's interests, and mine, well, I have no particular axe to grind in this matter. >With as much as you post, you should not give mis-leading info.< Perhaps you thought I was implying something antagonistic against CSCO that I did not mean to. >MPLS is just that and many contributed including CSCO and Juniper.< Isn't that a part of what I stated by indicating that CSCO was behind both Tag and MPLS? What your message omits is the fact that CSCO is still poised to deploy the original Tag as a proprietary solution. And there's nothing wrong with that for users with dedicated application needs on intranets, say. > In any standards development, the final result attempts to level the playing field so that any one contributor will not gain a strategic advantage.< I stated that too by indicating it was a compromised derivative, if you read between the lines. Are you suggesting here that CSCO did not attempt to contribute its Tag alternative as the standard to be followed from the get go? I seem to remember a significant amount of arm wrestling going on there, which, of course, is only normal in the standards development process. Granted. I may be wrong about the minute details concerning these matters, and I defer to your closer proximity and astute observations on those matters, as well. And thanks for clarifying the IBM connection with Juniper, although I stand by my statement that Blue does need a means of handling the loads I indicated in a manner that is more profitable to them. An alliance or partnership with a Juniper, or one of its contemporaries in Gigabit Routing, still makes a lot of sense in that regard, IMO. At one time there was talk of such an IBM relationship with CSCO in this regard, but I sense that this is no longer. Can you elaborate on that point? Regards, Frank C. ps - I think that you might have been a little overly protective on this one, Curtis. We're essentially saying the same thing. Although, I could have couched my points a little better, granted.