Is Cisco really that expensive?

/usr

I figured I'd have better luck asking you guys. I've tried looking up a bit of information, but it's tough to get any real numbers.

We currently use 3Com hardware almost exclusively. However, ever since the HP acquisition, we have encountered numerous problems getting material, with service contracts, etc.

My boss looked into Cisco gear, comparing prices and functionality between the equivalent 3Com hardware, and according to him Cisco generally runs about 2 to 3 times more. This was for layer 2 access switches with fiber uplinks.

I wasn't sure where he found these prices, how accurate they were, etc. I didn't know if becoming a Cisco partner lowered these prices substantially, or at all.

What do you guys think? We're seriously considering changing vendors, but it's tough to justify a 2-3X cost increase to our clients when trying to sell equipment, you know?

Bert McGert

If you're choking on the costs, get quotes on Juniper equipment for comparison. You'll be pleased... especially when it comes to support contracts.

Better yet, tell both sides that you're considering the other. That'll drive prices down even further and will likely result in them throwing in some training in a bid to win you over.

tiersten

Cisco is expensive but you're paying for the name and the support behind it. If you have a support contract and have an issue then Cisco TAC will provide fixes or special builds of the firmware for you.

it_consultant

The HP line of switches are second only to Cisco in sales and are seriously competitive in the price category. I sell them exclusively to my clients based on there layer 2 performance and lifetime warranty.

Dell switches are OK, but I still prefer HP to Cisco or Juniper. For routers and firewalls Cisco and Juniper are seriously competitive AND much better than sonicwalls or WGs. Whereas in switches ciscos are no better than HP (in fact I feel like they take a lot longer to converge in simple networks) or Dell.

*Edit*

For our price conscience customers we get Netgears, but not before a fight "No, you can really afford the HP, believe me you will thank me in the long run".

shednik

it_consultant wrote: »

The HP line of switches are second only to Cisco in sales and are seriously competitive in the price category. I sell them exclusively to my clients based on there layer 2 performance and lifetime warranty.

Dell switches are OK, but I still prefer HP to Cisco or Juniper. For routers and firewalls Cisco and Juniper are seriously competitive AND much better than sonicwalls or WGs. Whereas in switches ciscos are no better than HP (in fact I feel like they take a lot longer to converge in simple networks) or Dell.

*Edit*

For our price conscience customers we get Netgears, but not before a fight "No, you can really afford the HP, believe me you will thank me in the long run".

HP's command line setup is garbage, it was the most backwards way of doing things when we tested out their switches.

DevilWAH

I think there can be little argument to the quality of CISCO, I have dropped a few in my time and they still carry on, they feel like you could knock a wall down with them. As for stability, well search this forum and you will find examples of CISCO kit that has been running with out reboot for 8+ years.

And with CISCO being an old kid on the block, having its KIT run 80% of the core internet, they are leaders in the most up to date features and technologies.

Having said that, it all comes at a price. They are not cheap!! And if you don't need the features or the build quality, then other manufactures do very good jobs.

I think of CISCO a bit like a £200K sports car, while its nice to have, and if you have the money then personal I would go for it. However if all you need is to carry your bag to work, then you can use any old car.

Bert McGert

HP's command line setup is garbage, it was the most backwards way of doing things when we tested out their switches.

Ditto. HP's wack.

it_consultant

Bert McGert wrote: »

Ditto. HP's wack.

OK, perhaps, but it converges and switches faster, and its less expensive. I can't complain about the uptime of cisco switches but I can complain about there slovenly performance and there high price.

I like the CLI of HP switches - of course HP (and Juniper) get a nice GUI interface where a whole load of stuff can be handled.

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

but it converges and switches faster, and its less expensive. I can't complain about the uptime of cisco switches but I can complain about there slovenly performance and there high price.

Hmm? Got any numbers for this? High price I accept but I call BS on the others you've listed.

laidbackfreak

it_consultant wrote: »

I sell them exclusively to my clients based on there layer 2 performance and lifetime warranty. .

you are aware that Cisco switches come with a lifetime warranty also ? They just dont advertise it.....

deth1k

tiersten wrote: »

Hmm? Got any numbers for this? High price I accept but I call BS on the others you've listed.

I double this. How can you switch faster? Switches switch at the speed of line rate. Maybe you meant to say backplane throughput is higher?

gorebrush

Did he mean convergence of Routing Protocols, High Availability Protocols?

Any switch worth its salt would have the ability to tune those (if they even support it)

deth1k

Maybe he was meant to say STP convergence? That can be tweaked on any managed type switches.

cablegod

+1 for Juniper. They will surprise you on price. Their Ex3200 L3 PoE 24 port switch can be had for ~$1700. I bought 7 at that price. Their support is very good & cheap as well.

deth1k

cablegod wrote: »

+1 for Juniper. They will surprise you on price. Their Ex3200 L3 PoE 24 port switch can be had for ~$1700. I bought 7 at that price. Their support is very good & cheap as well.

This won't be the case for much longer, juniper are doing 50% off their switches when you migrate from other vender

---

> cisco :P
This is a good move to move into Enterprise market, their routers are still expensive though.

cablegod

deth1k wrote: »

This won't be the case for much longer, juniper are doing 50% off their switches when you migrate from other vender

---

> cisco :P
This is a good move to move into Enterprise market, their routers are still expensive though.

50% off retail right? That is still more than I paid if I remember correctly. I got them for ~ $1500 each a little over a year ago. My point was they will get extremely aggressive to pick up the business. I got the 4200s for not much more than the 3200s.

it_consultant

Sorry for insulting your precious Cisco switches! Why would you pay more for a switch that has no noticeably advantage over their competition, mainly Juniper, HP, and Foundry? They are not even in the same class as Extreme.

Some network admins default to Cisco because thats all they have ever used, or they spent a lot of money getting certified in Cisco. That does not mean they are the best for every situation.

OP asked if Cisco was really as expensive has he thought, and the answer is yes. Considering the use, he / she would get better performance at a lower cost per port going HP or Juniper.

If he required SUP engines or routing intelligence then HP probably wouldn't be a good rec, however Juniper makes outstanding layer three switches, so it would still boil down to price and familiarity IF that was a requirement.

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

Sorry for insulting your precious Cisco switches! Why would you pay more for a switch that has no noticeably advantage over their competition, mainly Juniper, HP, and Foundry? They are not even in the same class as Extreme.

You said that Cisco switches were worse than HP switches in performance not that there was no noticeable advantage. If you're going to make a claim like that then I'd like to see the numbers that back it up. I never said that you can't get a switch that is just as good for specific purposes for significantly less if you buy non Cisco.

deth1k

Cisco Gold partners get better discounts, also there are more Cisco certified people on the market to support a network, imagine having to have two people doing one persons job (CCNP and JNCIS) having to spend money to certify their existing technicians?

it_consultant

I have to make one correction, I am behind the power curve as far as networking goes, I referred to Foundry as a solid competitor to Cisco. They were bought by Brocade and I am not sure if the Foundry line even exists anymore.

I base my claim on the speed of HP switches based on my experiences with both products in similar networks. That is, a flat layer two network with gigabit ports, some with and some without fiber uplinks. HPs were quicker and less expensive. I wish I was able to compare the Dell 48 port gig switch compared to the Cisco 48 port product on a layer 2 network. I think that the Dell would more than hold its own.

I know people that decided their investment in Cisco was great enough in other areas, like firewalls and routers, that keeping the environment all Cisco more important than cost. I certainly understand that thinking.

It sounds like OP is a consultant, you have to be hardware agnostic when you consult. You might get seriously twisted requirements, "We dont like green so we can't get Ciscos". Or something more concrete like "We invest in a competitor so we can't buy Juniper".

If you consult and a switch is 2 to 3 times more expensive than a competitor, then you don't buy that switch. Period. Your client will price shop you and you will be in hot water.

shodown

As a Cisco engineer. I can honestly say that you can shop elsewhere for gear if you are on a tight budget. Cisco is not the only solution to look for.

it_consultant

deth1k wrote: »

Cisco Gold partners get better discounts, also there are more Cisco certified people on the market to support a network, imagine having to have two people doing one persons job (CCNP and JNCIS) having to spend money to certify their existing technicians?

The basics don't change from hardware piece to hardware piece. Unless you are using proprietary cisco protocols supporting the juniper platform should be a shallow learning curve for a cisco professional.

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

I base my claim on the speed of HP switches based on my experiences with both products in similar networks. That is, a flat layer two network with gigabit ports, some with and some without fiber uplinks. HPs were quicker and less expensive.

Quicker in what way?

it_consultant

tiersten wrote: »

Quicker in what way?

I would like to give you something concrete like "Cam lookups are faster" or "The backplane is faster" but in neither environment were we ever close to reaching either of those limits.

I base my claim on general network snappiness when doing regular Windows based tasks (SMB shares, internal websites, etc). HP network was either the same or faster than the Cisco equivalent.

I also base my claim on how long it takes for the switch to start forwarding packets after I plug them in. HPs are faster by seconds - which is a big deal when users are breathing down your neck waiting for their PCs to get a connection after a power outage, failed backup battery (true story) or whatever.

Have you been on two similar networks that have completely different networking hardware?

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

I base my claim on general network snappiness when doing regular Windows based tasks (SMB shares, internal websites, etc). HP network was either the same or faster than the Cisco equivalent.

That isn't very quantitive and very hand wavey to determine that your HP hardware is "quicker" than Cisco hardware. There are many reasons as to why one network may be slower than another. Configuration alone is going to affect things massively. One network may just have more traffic than another.

I can see HP and Cisco having equal performance aka line speed but I don't see how you can justify your previous comments about how HP is faster just based on your feeling when using Windows. If there is a significant difference that is bad enough that its visible on the desktop then there is something seriously wrong with the network. Until you can come up with numbers which clearly show a significant difference then I refuse to accept your claims as valid.

Put it this way, if there was such a massive difference that people on the desktop would easily notice then why does Cisco still have a very large marketshare? If it was as awful as you imply then why would anybody buy Cisco at all? Not everybody is going to be mindless sheep and just assume that Cisco is the best ever thing since sliced bread and that therefore they will and must use it.

You'll probably think that I'm defending Cisco because I work with Cisco hardware but I'm not. I'm just trying to get numbers which backup your claims. I'm perfectly happy with a Cisco, Extreme, HP or Juniper switch. Certain Dell models were apparently rebranded Procurves so I'd be fine with those. I wouldn't be happy with the budget Dell range which were based on a design by LVL7 which is/was also used by Netgear as I've had significant issues with them before and don't trust them at all.

it_consultant wrote: »

I also base my claim on how long it takes for the switch to start forwarding packets after I plug them in. HPs are faster by seconds - which is a big deal when users are breathing down your neck waiting for their PCs to get a connection after a power outage, failed backup battery (true story) or whatever.

Not correctly configured. Look up PortFast etc...

it_consultant wrote: »

Have you been on two similar networks that have completely different networking hardware?

Yes. I've been at multiple companies which have had multiple network hardware vendors. One company that had a combination of 3Com, Cisco and HP network hardware with IBM and HP (+ Compaq) servers.

deth1k

I hope we will not start comparing D-link with Cisco switches, the reason i brought this up is because their switches are more powerful (spec wise) and up to 10 times cheaper, however they are made up of cheap Chinese parts (no disregard to anyone) and their firmware is buggy making them a pain in the backside. Now with Cisco being one of the oldies all of the issues are ironed out. The up-time on those work horses count in years and not days like some of the cheaper boxes. Now when we start comparing big boys - Force 10, Brocade etc these are made for datacenters and not your average SMB / Medium eterprises with prices over what Cisco has to offer.

ColbyG

Cisco gear typically much more feature-rich than the competition. If you can get by with less, maybe consider other vendors. IMO, ever should use Cisco for everything though.:D

DevilWAH

it_consultant wrote: »

I base my claim on general network snappiness when doing regular Windows based tasks (SMB shares, internal websites, etc). HP network was either the same or faster than the Cisco equivalent.

I also base my claim on how long it takes for the switch to start forwarding packets after I plug them in. HPs are faster by seconds - which is a big deal when users are breathing down your neck waiting for their PCs to get a connection after a power outage, failed backup battery (true story) or whatever.

See this confuses me as well, I know out of the box like some one else mentioned that becasue of STP a access port can take 30 seconds to come up. But that's the default "safe" config. set up your switch correctly with portfast and forwarding becomes instant the moment the port is powered on.

When running ether channels or RSTP, traffic continues with out interruption in cases of a link failer.

I am with most other people here it seems. CISCO if you have the cash build a very good, high end product that leads the field in terms of features, and is deficiently no slouch in terms of throughput and power.

However if you don't need that high-end feature set and you don't have quite such a mission critical uptimes. there are plenty of other manufactures that would be suitable to look at for a fraction of the price.

it_consultant

I dont think Cisco makes bad hardware (there uptime is legendary) and if you are already vested in Cisco than thats that, not much of a reason to change. If your moving from a different manufacturer then you are well to do to look at the environments you support and determine whether the features of a Cisco are worth the price they charge.

What does the Cisco switch do that the HP or Juniper does not do that is a deal-breaker?

Lets get real for the OP and compare. I quote these from Ingram Micro:

HP E4210 24 Port Gigabit Switch - $1,263 SKU DE9648
Cisco 3560E 24 Port Gigabit Switch - $3,653 SKU M14687

http://www.ingrammicro.com/ims/search/displayProduct?sku=DE9648&catalog=itna&path=filterSearchResultsMode
http://www.ingrammicro.com/ims/search/displayProduct?sku=M14687&catalog=itna&path=pagination

I tried to make this apples to apples, they are both layer 2 gigabit switches with 24 ports, expansion slots, and fast(er) uplinks. Please tell my why you would spend almost double for the Cisco product.

kalebksp

3560s are layer 3 switches, I think a better comparison would be a WS-C2960S-24PS-L.

EDIT: I should have said WS-C2960S-24TS-L.

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

What does the Cisco switch do that the HP or Juniper does not do that is a deal-breaker?

Lets get real for the OP and compare. I quote these from Ingram Micro:

HP E4210 24 Port Gigabit Switch - $1,263 SKU DE9648
Cisco 3560E 24 Port Gigabit Switch - $3,653 SKU M14687

http://www.ingrammicro.com/ims/search/displayProduct?sku=DE9648&catalog=itna&path=filterSearchResultsMode
http://www.ingrammicro.com/ims/search/displayProduct?sku=M14687&catalog=itna&path=pagination

I tried to make this apples to apples, they are both layer 2 gigabit switches with 24 ports, expansion slots, and fast(er) uplinks. Please tell my why you would spend almost double for the Cisco product.

I don't have an account at Ingram Micro so I have no idea what you're linking to.

The first thing I'd say that the 3560E can do that the E4210 doesn't is that the 3560E is a L3 capable switch. I can't find detail specifications for the HP E4210 but I'll trust you that it is a L2 switch.