Is Cisco really that expensive?

kalebksp

tiersten wrote: »

I can't find detail specifications for the HP E4210 but I'll trust you that it is a L2 switch.

It's apparently a 3com "layer 2+" switch that supports static routing. I suggested comparing it to a comparable LAN Base 2960 because the latest IOS on those is supposed to also support static routing.

tiersten

kalebksp wrote: »

It's apparently a 3com "layer 2+" switch that supports static routing. I suggested comparing it to a comparable LAN Base 2960 because the latest IOS on those is supposed to also support static routing.

Found it. It is a 4210G aka #3CRS42G-24-91. The detailed datasheet is here as 3com seem to have broken their own site and the datasheet was moved/deleted.

chmorin

Off topic but I have to interject that this is the reason why I love these forums and all of you. You guys are worth your weight in thousand dollar bills. Your ability to respect and argue to come to a definitive solution when it comes to a potential controversy is amazing, and I respect it immensely.

That being said, there is alot to be said for the uses of cisco layer three switches and in my (small) experience I have yet to find equipment to match the robustness of the IOS when it comes to that environment. Something about a 6500 chassis full of mods lets you know this thing can get the work done and get it done fast. When it comes to firewalls and other things, you could probably find more bang for your buck. But cisco makes quality and puts their support behind it. VERY good support behind it, TAC is amazing. It is kind of hard to fight against.

it_consultant

I had meant to compare a layer 2 and layer 2 device - its not fair to compare a layer 2 and a layer 3 switch.

I didn't want to compare a 3COM piece either, so I traded it with the Pro Curve 2810-24G which is a 24 port gig switch that goes for $1,221.

Ingram Lists the 2960 - which another poster suggested, which is $1,849; which is much closer to the HP but still more expensive.

What I am driving at is that for comparable hardware Ciscos are more expensive and unless you can tell me why say, the Cisco 2960 is better than the HP 2810 - then it looks to me like Cisco is price gouging.

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

What I am driving at is that for comparable hardware Ciscos are more expensive and unless you can tell me why say, the Cisco 2960 is better than the HP 2810 - then it looks to me like Cisco is price gouging.

As previously mentioned, you're buying the brand name and the associated services based on that. Whilst it may not have a direct monetary value, for some companies it is one of the most important requirements and indirectly worth something. If all your network staff are only trained on Cisco hardware and you want this new project to be up and running as quickly as possible then you'd want to buy Cisco hardware. If your network is all HP then you're going to want HP aren't you?

It is like you going to the grocery store. Why do you buy specific brands even if they're equivalent to others? Why do you prefer a proper HP over a 3Com? They're both going to give you line speed switching of 24 10/100/1000 ports.

Price gouging doesn't apply unless Cisco are the only people selling that item and you can't get it elsewhere. It isn't price gouging if they're just the expensive option in the market full of alternatives. Nobody is forcing you to buy a Cisco device to get 24 10/100/100 ports.

I'm getting the feeling that you're biased against Cisco. You've mentioned in another thread that you're an HP shop so that is fairly understandable. What you're ignoring is that the general consensus in this thread is that it is possible to buy alternative hardware from another vendor which is as good as Cisco for less money. If you need the name or specific feature support then buy whatever device fulfills those requirements. It may be Cisco. It may be HP. It may be Juniper. I know that Cisco are missing some key models in its ranges which are available as an option from Juniper. I'm sure HP would be able to offer me something as well for gaps in the Cisco range.

kalebksp

Unfortunately on the Cisco side just the series number (ie. 2960) is not enough to say what features it has. Assuming your pricing is for the SKU I posted above that switch is capable of basic static routing and can accept an additional module for stacking. Depending on needs I'd pay an extra $600 for that.

I was going to write that switch choice depends on a number of factors, but I think tiersten said it better than I could.

DevilWAH

Onr thing to also rember is that you never pay list prices. So don't get to hubng up on that. Any largeish company will get discounts for this, that and the other. Espicaly if you are already a coustomer.

I find cisco hike there prices to look the more expensive and are happy to come down a bit to match more closly others. Makes people fell better when they get some thing cheaper than advertised.

ColbyG

it_consultant wrote: »

I had meant to compare a layer 2 and layer 2 device - its not fair to compare a layer 2 and a layer 3 switch.

In the end, this says a great deal. You appear to know very little about Cisco, you don't even know the basics of which series is L2 and which are L3. Without basic knowledge, it's hard to trust your opinion of a brand.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but let's be honest, you seem to be bashing Cisco with little experience with or knowledge of the equipment. I know little about HP or Netgear switches, so I'm not going to make definitive statements about why Cisco must be better. That's why I made a broad statement saying Cisco tends to have more features than the less expensive brands.

Anyway, this hasn't been a bad discussion and I wouldn't mind looking at hard comparisons of a few different vendors.

ColbyG

Here's a feature chart:

http://www.cisco.com/global/EMEA/sitewide_assets/pdfs/engage/2950_vs_hp.pdf

Old gear but still worth looking at. I'm trying to find more comparisons.

it_consultant

ColbyG wrote: »

In the end, this says a great deal. You appear to know very little about Cisco, you don't even know the basics of which series is L2 and which are L3. Without basic knowledge, it's hard to trust your opinion of a brand.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but let's be honest, you seem to be bashing Cisco with little experience with or knowledge of the equipment. I know little about HP or Netgear switches, so I'm not going to make definitive statements about why Cisco must be better. That's why I made a broad statement saying Cisco tends to have more features than the less expensive brands.

Anyway, this hasn't been a bad discussion and I wouldn't mind looking at hard comparisons of a few different vendors.

Lets not get insulting please, I have been doing this job for a long time and in fact, the last two switches I listed I have intimate familiarity with both the 2960 and the Pro Curve I mentioned in the enterprise. When a poster let me know that the previous Cisco I looked at was much more capable (layer three compared to layer 2) I fixed my post.

If you read my postings with detail, you will notice that I am taking great care to avoid bashing Cisco. I use Cisco products regularly, I have no trouble recommending them when I think they are the best product for whatever purpose you may have. However, in my experience selling things to price conscience clients, I can rarely justify the added expense of a Cisco switch. If you want to pay an extra $600 for static routing capability or whatever, and you just can't handle doing that from the firewall or the router - then you pay the extra $600. I have not been in a situation where that was an important consideration.

Sometimes Cisco has the best deal. For example I put in a wireless network for a hotel in Cheyenne Wyoming. We had originally quoted a Watchguard X20e for their firewall. The Cisco ASA 5505 came with unlimited licensing (the WG topped out at 30) for the same price. We bought the Cisco. I haven't had to reboot it since I installed it in late January. Like I said previously, Cisco's uptime is legendary. Oh, and we put in Cisco Aironets, which are worth 100% of what Cisco charges, they are far and away better than consumer wireless access points.

tiersten

it_consultant wrote: »

However, in my experience selling things to price conscience clients, I can rarely justify the added expense of a Cisco switch. If you want to pay an extra $600 for static routing capability or whatever, and you just can't handle doing that from the firewall or the router - then you pay the extra $600. I have not been in a situation where that was an important consideration.

In cases like that, the price of the item is an important consideration so the rules of the game have already changed. People are willing to pay a premium for certain features or brands if it is deemed necessary for their operation. You can't have everything for nothing here.

I primarily work in the financial sector and the cost of a switch is nothing. They're most interested in uptime and support so are willing to spend more for a single vendor network to improve compatibility. I would expect the service provider world to be the same. The network going down literally means you losing thousands per second if not more.

If there was a router or switch that had an absolutely guaranteed 100% uptime with no chance of failure ever but it would be 50x the cost of a regular switch, I'd be able to point you at people who would be interested in it.

it_consultant

I see where your coming from, if you work for a company that wants a Cisco product and can afford it, there is no reason NOT to use Cisco. I don't have that luxury. For the before mentioned hotel, I had to quote the Cisco and ram it down my bosses throat because in their heads, Ciscos are expensive and hard to manage.

I have to challenge my own preconceptions as well. For example, the 2960 is really what, only 1.5 times as expensive as the HP? Thats a far cry from 2x to 3x like the OP's boss had said they were. Perhaps he fell into the same trap I did and quote apples to oranges and drew the wrong conclusion. I am happy to be corrected on that.

I suggest you guys try out the HP product in an enterprise environment, I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

kalebksp

it_consultant wrote: »

However, in my experience selling things to price conscience clients, I can rarely justify the added expense of a Cisco switch. If you want to pay an extra $600 for static routing capability or whatever, and you just can't handle doing that from the firewall or the router - then you pay the extra $600. I have not been in a situation where that was an important consideration.

Having routing in the switch is pretty nice when you want to do inter-vlan routing without the bottleneck of router on a stick. It allows smaller shops to have a mini core switch of sorts.

Out of curiousity, what pricing do you see on a WS-C2960S-24TS-S? That one doesn't have the routing capability and is a better comparison to a HP 2810.

erpadmin

chmorin wrote: »

Off topic but I have to interject that this is the reason why I love these forums and all of you. You guys are worth your weight in thousand dollar bills. Your ability to respect and argue to come to a definitive solution when it comes to a potential controversy is amazing, and I respect it immensely.

Quick interruption, then we can go back to our normal scheduled programming...

I am not a network guy, but I enjoy reading network topics from time to time. As chmorin stated, I definitely like how you guys can disagree without resorting to the dumb crap. It's not always like that, but in threads such as this one, this is why I definitely read them. Plus, it gives folks like me a chance to learn/pick up something new. So please, carry on.

Ahriakin

I've used ProCurves in a previous life, for that medium size business they were a good fit.
But there are a lot of other factors that go into deciding on a switch dependant on the environment and requirements beyond stated port capacity. Forwarding rate is usually small-print but vital to understand just how oversubscribed the device really is (and they all are to some extent), the amount/size of the hardware buffers, Q'ing algorithm quality and distribution of the ASICs (usually shared between multiple ports) among others all have a part to play when you start pushing the performance envelope. Yes you pay a premium for Cisco but you also end up with top-notch equipment that will have pretty much every feature you could ever need from a switch in that class - now if you know you will never need those advanced features, or port-density is your primary concern and not the absolute forwarding rate (as is common at the distribution layer) then other vendor offerings may well make more sense.

stuh84

it_consultant wrote: »

I suggest you guys try out the HP product in an enterprise environment, I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

I can only work on second hand information here, as I've not used the HPs myself, but if you check out www.evilrouters.net, that guy has had a mental amount of problems with the HPs. Maybe the rebranded 3com line will be better, who knows.

tiersten

Ahriakin wrote: »

Forwarding rate is usually small-print but vital to understand just how oversubscribed the device really is (and they all are to some extent), the amount/size of the hardware buffers, Q'ing algorithm quality and distribution of the ASICs (usually shared between multiple ports) among others all have a part to play when you start pushing the performance envelope.

I'd like to lodge a complaint about the stupid Cat 6500 linecards, EARL in its various revisions and the 3560E with microbursts

Ahriakin

Heh...we have. Ran into some very nasty issues that ended up being down to ASIC distribution on the cards.