Cisco Developing Standalone Networking OS, Report Says (crn.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cisco Developing Standalone Networking OS, Report Says (crn.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday March 30, 2017 @02:00AM from the assuming-control dept.

Cisco has built a new network operating system that will allow users to run its most sophisticated networking features on older and lower-cost Cisco routers and switches, according to a report. From a report: The move to potentially disrupt its networking hardware business was first reported by The Information, which said that Cisco, for now, is not looking to have its network operating system available for non-Cisco switches. Customers who want to run the new operating system, known as Lindt, will be able to move away from switches based on proprietary high-performance Cisco chips to Cisco hardware that works with lower-cost chips, according to the report.

77 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Keep it by DogDude · 2017-03-30 02:02 · Score: 1

They can keep it. Our company just dumped all of our Cisco equipment because it was buggy and unreliable. I don't understand how these guys are still in business.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re:Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  They appear to be less buggy then competitors
2. Re:Keep it by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-30 02:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "No ever got fired for buying Cisco."
3. Re:Keep it by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-30 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  CORRECTION: "No one ever got fired for buying Cisco."
  Meh... Skinny vanilla latte haven't kicked in yet.
4. Re:Keep it by David_Hart · 2017-03-30 02:28 · Score: 2
  
  They can keep it. Our company just dumped all of our Cisco equipment because it was buggy and unreliable. I don't understand how these guys are still in business.
  Granted, Cisco has had their share of problems. The most recent one being that certain equipment models over a span of a few years were prone to RAM failure. If you have those models in your environment and they are failing, then yes, it would appear to you that their equipment is buggy. However, I've had experience in large environments with a lot of different Cisco equipment and we rarely run into premature hardware failures, for the most part they just run.
  Typically, other than the RAM problem mentioned earlier, network issues are caused by poor network design, configuration, poor power/cooling, and/or users doing stupid things. Very rarely is it the hardware.
  I'm willing to bet that Cisco was dropped because it was too expensive rather than any issues with the hardware...
5. Re:Keep it by DogDude · 2017-03-30 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. I dropped them because their routers kept flaking out and needing reboots. I spent significantly more on routers from another company.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
6. Re:Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Certain models? You mean standard enterprise workhorses like the 4500s, 6500s, 2960s, and more, right?
  That said, you are correct about the more common network issues. Personally, I would like to include additional Layer 8 issues - for example, dumb MBAs who think that they are the real network engineers. Oh, and their H-1B sycophants.
7. Re:Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  H1B is just a drop in the bucket. TAC is now just about exclusively Mexican and Indian support done by both H1Bs and remotely. They are horrible. Most of the time when I need help with an issue, I have to escalate to someone in the USA who understands and can help. It's reason enough to dump Cisco in favor of a better vendor.
8. Re: Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Correction: "hasn't"
  Still not working? Hehe.
9. Re:Keep it by jon3k · 2017-03-30 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Cisco alone has 53% of the overall worldwide switching and routing market. If you cannot get their equipment to work, it's not their fault. Maybe you could hire someone who know's what they're doing?
10. Re: Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. I am not going to comment on Cisco, but on your logic. Market share is no guaranteed indicator of product quality. Microsoft Windows had 95% market share in the 1990s and it used to crash and need reboots all the time. I can list numerous examples of market share leaders being terrible, but if you haven't realized it from my counter example already I am not going to waste my time. Often times market share leader products are generations behind their competitors.
11. Re:Keep it by acoustix · 2017-03-30 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Weird. I have 2800 series routers and 3750 series switches that have over 10 years uptime. Never powered off. Never restarted. Running since June 2006. They are solid.
  Now I will admit that I'm behind on my IOS updates.
  
  --
  "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
12. Re:Keep it by DogDude · 2017-03-30 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  We were using entry level routers. Regardless of whether it was entry level or not, they didn't work the way they were supposed to. Maybe the heavier duty stuff is better. I don't really know.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
13. Re:Keep it by DogDude · 2017-03-30 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  The equipment I had from them did not work as they were supposed to. They were a mess, and I wasn't the only one having tons of problems with them. Maybe their enterprise class stuff works correctly, but their lower end stuff that I used certainly doesn't. Thanks for your snark, though! It was really helpful!
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
14. Re: Keep it by jon3k · 2017-03-30 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Really bad analogy that supports my point, not yours. There's a reason for Microsoft had a 95% market share. No one made a better desktop operating system in the 90s. If you think Linux was better in the 90s, you weren't using it (I was) and for 95% of the population Windows was a better option, even if it did crash once a day.
  
  If you think the average person was better off with anything other than Windows in the 90s you're delusional.
15. Re:Keep it by jon3k · 2017-03-30 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I just don't believe you. Considering the number of people successfully using Cisco equipment the more likely explanation is user error. Either you misunderstood the capabilities of the device or it was implemented improperly. It's just far more likely, statistically speaking, sorry.
16. Re:Keep it by Cramer · 2017-03-30 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Very rarely is it the hardware
  - Cisco 7401's: cache design fault causes random reboots.
  - PIX 501: poor choice of power connector, and poorer choice of internal power components led to the first few thousand having to be "fixed"
  - ... bad caps (industry wide issue for a few years)
  - ... bad RAM across the entire spectrum of products
  And that's not counting the thousands of "one off" failures enterprises experience all the time. (that's why you buy Smartnet!) I've had the SRAM (packet memory) in a VIP "go bad". Shit breaks. Things have design flaws. Software ALWAYS has bugs. Cisco is huge. Their products are increasing complex, so issues are going to be common and "a big deal".
17. Re:Keep it by Cramer · 2017-03-30 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on what you make them do, and the version of code used to do it. There are some parts of IOS they simply don't test. (I've had QA engineers say so.) The biggest issue I've had -- and they've never fully fixed it -- is DHCP on a NAT outside interface. "interface nat" doesn't work. And then there's always some little memory leak or corruption issue somewhere that will crash the thing at some point. (even if it takes years.)
18. Re:Keep it by DogDude · 2017-03-30 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  No need to apologize. I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm contributing my viewpoint to this discussion. We're happy since we replaced our Cisco junk with working routers, so that's really all that matters.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
19. Re: Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 15:49 · Score: 0
  
  So the significantly more expensive routers perform better.
  Who'd have thought that?
20. Re: Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 15:52 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like you are shit with Windows, too.
  How do you still have a job? Just blame someone else?
21. Re: Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-31 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  If you think that's a valid analogy, do I have news for you. MS ruthlessly pressured OEMs with predatory pricing in the manner that, if they shipped anything other than Windows, well, then MS would have no choice but to jack the per-license pricing by 1000%. In a market with razor-thin margins, where every last dollar counts, it's easy for an OEM to make the decision to drop OS/2, Linux, and the like. They were brought up on charges of monopoly abuse repeatedly, and in one case actually were found to have broken the law, only to have the DoJ decide to not press for any kind of fines or penalties. They used their position as the maker of the OS in ways that would make your head spin, like inserting NOP commands (No OPeration, for those lacking in X86 assembler knowledge) in the printing stack to make Wordperfect (and any word processor that wasn't MS Word) run slower by 300%. This is something I _know_ because I found the evidence with set of code tools back in the 3.1 days. Did they ever get busted for this kind of nefariousness? No! They make consistently mediocre products, and nobody knows any different because they were prevented from ever seeing anything better. They removed the choice from the consumer.
  Cisco has the share they have because they actually make good products. Sure, they're pricey, but the network is the single most complex computer in your environment, and one that has the requirement of 100% availability. How much is your business worth?
22. Re:Keep it by TechnoJoe · 2017-03-31 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  What did you replace it with?
23. Re:Keep it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-01 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  We replaced our Cisco routers with Draytek routers.
Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Translation:
The hardware business is going stale. Lets add the same feature in software, where we can nickel and dime people for the same features,and tightly control access.
Packet inspection license
Packet routing license
Packet switching license
UDP packet license
TCP packet license
NSA inspection fee....
1. Re:Translation by TWX · 2017-03-30 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much. That's why Cisco bought Meraki, to attempt to dissect how to leverage the subscription model instead of just selling hardware to customers and providing support if it's needed.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Translation by courteaudotbiz · 2017-03-30 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  The hardware business is going stale
  Software cannot run out of thin air. This is not what "Cloud" means. It's simply different hardware, or other people's hardware. In the end, you still need computing power and specialized hardware to do serious business stuff. Virtualization needs an underlying physical layer.
3. Re:Translation by courteaudotbiz · 2017-03-30 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yet I still agree with you that every small feature gets a price tag. But isn't it already the way it works? It's been like that for years. Take the ASA 5505 for example. Depending on the license level you bought, they put a limit on the number of open connections, the encryption types you can use, whether or not you can establish P2P VPN or accept incoming VPN users... These are all software limitations. I agree that they bought Meraki for their business model though, to have a "better" offer (... profit!)
Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:09 · Score: 2

That'll be $5,000 per year, please for your 5-port switch. That includes your per port license fee for using IP networking, license fee per port for gigabit Ethernet, license fee for linking one port to another switch, license fee for admin access, license fee for installing the unit during a full moon...
1. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-03-30 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't lapse on your $5,000 per year or you get to pay it retroactively if you want to install a security update to fix their bugs.
  I swear, somebody in Cisco is a double-agent for HP.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by ghoul · 2017-03-30 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I swear IT customers are like girls who fall for the bad boys and ignore the decent guys. if a company wants a simple license fee to use its software people will pirate it or ignore it and use "open source". But if you get someone who abuses you by saying my way or the highway they will stick to him/it even closer. Witness Apple, Cisco,Accenture etc etc
  
  --
  **Life is too short to be serious**
3. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  The more money a company makes, the more we pay. Therefore the best interest of the company is the worst interest of the purchaser. End the cycle and use open source.
4. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  "Double-agent for HP"?
  LOL.
  Last I heard, Cisco still pays well, unlike SatanMeg and HP-HPE-DXC-whatever other beasts SatanMeg conjures up from the darkness, so I don't think there's any real motivation for someone at Cisco to work for SatanMeg and her minions.
5. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by firewrought · 2017-03-30 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  You're conflating two types of customers: individuals (who just want to grab a tool and get on with their job) and corporations (who want every procurement to have a business case and approval from IT Security, Legal, Supply Chain, a Business Analyst, and 3-4 managers). The open source product wins because the developer/engineer/analysts/creative can just use it and ...er... ask for permission later (like maybe never, later). The big Oracle-like products win because they can afford account reps who will wine-and-dine the C-class folks (who can cut thru the crap required to swipe the company credit card). The micro-ISV loses because--while they may have folks in the company who passionately want their product--there's just too much bureaucracy in the way to make it happen.
  I recently advocated for my company to buy a cloud-based product from an existing ISV whom we already had a relationship with. It took MONTHS, despite this product being mission-critical (the older on-premise version had no DR, wasn't getting backed up, etc.). Legal went around in circles trying to revise the ISV's standard contract before capitulating. (Duh... they have a monopoly on this industry segment and they're the only source of the data.) Much hand-wringing was made about using a vendor-hosted solution (okay, somewhat valid, but the data was at more risk sitting on an unpatched server in our DMZ). At least 3 managers and 1 business analyst had to stomp for it, and we only had ~1 month left in the fiscal year when we inked the deal. If that arbitrary date had passed, there would have been a huge headache about how to fund it. If the hard drive in that server had failed, we would have been hemorrhaging money for weeks.
  
  --
  -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
6. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by pak9rabid · 2017-03-30 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  That includes your per port license fee for using IP networking
  Joke's you you! I use IPX netwo
7. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by Cramer · 2017-03-30 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Security updates/fixes can be had for free. It can be a bit of work to get them honor it, but every security advisory has a clause at the bottom to contact TAC for non-contract customers. (In my experience, it's faster to search the internet for it, than deal with out-of-contract interactions with TAC.)
8. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by Cramer · 2017-03-30 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Negative. This is simple nickel-and-dime price rouging. They sell you the same piece of hardware with a different model number on it, crippling it in software and licensing. For example, the ages old ASA 5510/20/40/50. They're all the same hardware. They get slightly faster, and better processors, and more DIMM slots, but it's the same software on the same motherboard. On the 10, the four gigabit nics are limited to 10/100; if you buy the expensive security plus license, then *two* of them can be set to gig speed. On the 20, with a 400MHz faster celeron, all four run at full speed. Per "user" limits are just as lame, and in fact, take a great deal of work to track.
  It's marketed to the enterprise as a means of "in-place upgrading". You only need a firewall with 100 user, 10k connection, 100Mbps right now, but might 10x that in a few years. The bullshit is they're selling you hardware that's orders of magnitude faster and more capable at a profitable price with the base license. The $10k box is identical to the $1k box; the only difference is on paper. It's the same software on the same hardware, any difference in price is nonsense; you've already paid for the hardware capabilities, and software development.
9. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by ghoul · 2017-04-01 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  A Gucci purse cost 5 dollars to manufacture in a sweatshop in Bangladesh. its sold for 5000 USD. Why? Because people in the fashion industry know not to shit where they eat. Software developers are their own worse enemy. The cost of something is not what it costs you to produce, its what someone is willing to pay for it. Thats Economics 101
  
  --
  **Life is too short to be serious**
10. Re:Nickle and dime pricing, I'm sure. by ghoul · 2017-04-01 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why cant you setup your own DR instead of going to a Cloud Hosted Model? Cloud hosting is a continuos drain whereas with your own DR you can use that money to fund your own IT positions forever. Again efficiency for the sake of efficiency is dumb when you end up eliminating your own job.
  
  --
  **Life is too short to be serious**
spyware upgrade by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Cisco has built a new network operating system that will allow spy agencies to run their most recent spyware on older and lower-cost Cisco routers and switches"
ftfy
1. Re:spyware upgrade by jofas · 2017-03-30 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  "payload agnostic"
Something... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:22 · Score: 0

Bellybutton lindt
Pocket lindt
Dryer lindt
Cisco lindt
1. Re:Something... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Lindt Chocolate - yum!
A bit of inside info... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-03-30 02:22 · Score: 3, Informative

It's written in assembly and is so compact that it fits on a floppy disk. It's called Lindt now but I think they should stuck with the original name, the Disk Operating System. ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:A bit of inside info... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Translation, they see another opportunity to keep there equipment in businesses. Run the whatever and at some point when it fails and the IT staff has turned over a couple time some PHB will be forced to throw money at Cisco to fix some problem with all there "updated" software. Why fight open source when you can co-opt it to make more money. Too much time in corporate America to believe that Cisco consulting fees are not the reason.
2. Re:A bit of inside info... by leathered · 2017-03-30 04:09 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  It's called Lindt
  I imagine it's choc full of features.
  
  --
  For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
3. Re: A bit of inside info... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  *their
  *their
4. Re:A bit of inside info... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  DOS came later. CPM
5. Re:A bit of inside info... by unixisc · 2017-03-30 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Assembly? So they're running the networking OS off PCs? What about people who're not on Windows? Reading the headline, I thought they were releasing an OS that would run on their old equipment, but support current networking standards, such as IPv6
Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:26 · Score: 0

Totally pwn3d by China.
Hope they got this right... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-30 02:30 · Score: 1

Designed with security from the ground up! Right?
Lindt by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:30 · Score: 0

Lindt is a Swiss chocolatier.
Fully Backdoor Compatible by zenlessyank · 2017-03-30 02:36 · Score: 1

Will rent out to highest bidder!!
Response to Kaspersky perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 02:39 · Score: 0

Response to this maybe?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/23/kasperskyos/
/b/ by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 03:01 · Score: 0

Remember when /b/ was good?
1. Re:/b/ by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Remember when /b/ was good?
  No.
Other by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 03:04 · Score: 0

No phone. What's the point? You can email most sms networks. Everyone has some sort of IM/VOIP software even on their phones etc. I maintain my car. I know how to change a spare tire (unlike 60% of the population). I own a gun. And I'm not old enough to have to call 911 when I break a hip... Smartphones are treadmills of poverty and social isolation (depending on which demographic you're in).
Market response by EndlessNameless · 2017-03-30 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is only a surprise outside of large enterprises.
Open Flow (SDN) is threatening them at the high end, and there are multiple competitors at the low/mid market---including Dell, who bought Force10 and is pushing their network and storage products very seriously.
Dell now owns VMware, EMC, Compellent, and Force10. They only need power delivery and UPS to offer a complete datacenter.
Cisco cannot justify insane pricing in the face of so many capable competitors. Especially when their attempts to expand into cloud services failed so miserably. Their hardware offerings outside of network gear are almost laughable.
Cisco can probably survive another 10-20 years if they compete well with their gear. The gear has always been solid, and the problem has always been a combination of lock-in and price. Competing on price will keep them a while, especially with their track record, but they will need more than competitive network gear to survive long-term.

--

---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
1. Re: Market response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  Since the Chinese competitor is no longer banned in the US for selling to Iran, you may want to revise down that 10 to 20 year estimate. Those guys will do more for less to gain market share with government backing. Cisco's days are numbered so expect a sale soon.
2. Re:Market response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  The gear has always been solid... yeah, especially those solid back doors..... the most reliable way to allow people into your network.
3. Re:Market response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Cisco hasn't innovated with it's monolithic kernel in decades and due to that they can't even build a decent GUI on top of it and it shows. Their firmware is a complete mess, and if you ever compared their config file to anything else you'll quickly realize their infrastructure is a joke. Try making sense of an ASA config that's a few thousand lines long. Went down to a data center Wind stream was standing up a few years ago, every TOR Switch was a Juniper SRX, some companies were running SRX and EX Switches, all of which have the same JunOS Firmware and the command set is basically all the same. There were a handful of Cisco Switches and ASA's here or there but it was clear they were badly outnumbered.
  Openstack is very much so a ploy from the Chinese to get into and undercut major American innovators in order to sell product. Basically we're taking decades of network infrastructure standards and deciding they are never going to change in a meaningful way so lets standardize the management of it all. Customers love this, it makes everything cheaper, but the market doesn't, and it's bad for innovation. After you force the playing field to level out everyone becomes terrified of doing anything a little different. Juniper doesn't allow their devices to interoperate with open-stack and has their own proprietary platform for orchestration that is from what I can see, way ahead of where openstack is at. Largely openstack infrastructures are there for robust monitoring from what I can see, config is still handled manually or through scripted SSH sessions.
  What's happening there is the SRX, EX, and MX gear is ending up in the distribution and core layers due to reliability and manageability, the Cisco gear is ending up on the Edge, the Pal-alto and specialty security appliances (e.g. Ironport for e-mail) are ending up on the internet gateways and in front of certain kinds of servers. Cisco is an edge network player at this point only and they have been undercut on the low-cost side by Adtrans and other knock-offs.
  If Cisco can manage to replace their monolithic kernel with something that is sane, functional and robust, they can regain their spot as innovators. Problem is they've been stagnating for a long time now. Juniper is way ahead of them on that game, and the rest of the market is biting at their knee's.
4. Re:Market response by EndlessNameless · 2017-03-30 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  I worked at a large American telecom company over a decade ago, and they had a lot of Juniper gear even back then. It was mostly ERX 1440s sitting between the core and the customers.
  I think it really does take a long time for most individual enterprises to move away from such an entrenched vendor, but it will happen faster if Cisco doesn't get their act together. I'm seeing reports that Dell/Force10 is capable of pushing the same data rates at half the wattage compared to Cisco (Juniper is very close to Force10). That is a huge advantage for cloud providers and big-data companies.
  My employer doesn't have the kind of environment where that matters too much. We need a fast, reliable network---not necessarily the best-of-the-best. But once there is a huge pool of experienced network engineers talking up Juniper and Force10, you can bet they will convince management sooner or later.
  
  --
  
  ---
  According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
5. Re:Market response by Cramer · 2017-03-30 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Cisco tried for years to modularize IOS. It was a mess and never left the lab. Instead, they turned into an application running on a linux platform. The ASA... linux running a single application that is the entire firewall. (linux is easier to run on random x86 systems than porting your homegrown, inhouse OS) For IOS, we ended up with NX-OS (switches), and IOS-XE (routers) -- and IOS-XR [QNX based] on the bigiron routers. [ https://networkingnerd.net/tag... ]
6. Re:Market response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  ...only problem is Cisco does not know how to write secure code worth a damn
Is this meant to be SDN or just more proprietary? by swb · 2017-03-30 03:25 · Score: 1

Are vendors so stuck in the hardware device sales mode that we will never see generic switch form factors where you load the switching/routing software into the device like an x86 box?
I would kind of expect one of the chipset vendors to come out with what amounts to an x86 rackmount with bus-attached switching modules, kind of an expanded version of a multiport NIC but with programmable ASICs for speed.
From what I've seen of the Dell N-series (which mostly seems to be rebranded OEM Broadcom) boot sequence, it's kind of what the hardware already is now. The only thing missing is the ability to load up third party operating systems.
Re:Is this meant to be SDN or just more proprietar by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-03-30 04:03 · Score: 1

I think there was an attempt to create an open source version of the Cisco firmware but that never took off.
The Cisco way seems.....old by zerofoo · 2017-03-30 04:19 · Score: 1

I've got a stack of Cisco gear in my basement while studying for Cisco certs and I've managed Cisco gear in production. The stuff is solid, but managing it feels like it's 1999.
Meanwhile, there are tons of SDN vendors that feel like 2017 - single pane of glass management and monitoring without nickel and diming you on each feature and smartnet contracts. (Cisco knows this and that's why they bought Meraki).
Cisco still makes great carrier grade high-end gear, but the middle and low-end stuff is displacing Cisco fast. Meraki is nice, but the recurring cost makes it a tough sell compared to others.
Guys like Ubiquiti are pretty standard in emerging markets. Cisco is so highly priced that they may never see a presence in those markets. I like Cisco and ran it for many years, but It's hard to see a future for them.
1. Re:The Cisco way seems.....old by Cramer · 2017-03-30 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  (Cisco knows this and that's why they bought Meraki)
  So they could nickel-and-dime you in the cloud as well.
  Meraki is ok. But their hardware is way too expensive, and the never ending cloud management fees can't be ignored. For an enterprise that can't afford a huge IT staff, the stuff is perfect, if costly.
QNX by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 04:33 · Score: 0

How much do you wanna bet that it's simply QNX with some modified BSP support. This is what most of Cisco's non-Linux OS's are, except it's sort of a not very secret trade secret. They always buy full rights to source code and re-branding, but it's still QNX.
1. Re:QNX by acoustix · 2017-03-30 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  So, does that mean I can run BlackBerry on my Cisco hardware? ;)
  My friends that hate BB and Cisco will shit over that. :)
  
  --
  "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
2. Re:QNX by unixisc · 2017-03-30 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Does Cisco own any QNX IP? I thought it was all w/ Blackberry
MikroTik by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 08:26 · Score: 0

They should just license MikroTix's router software. It fits in 16MB of flash and supports all the core protocols. Running it at home for a month now and think it's excellent and the boxes start from $50. Plenty of other options out there too pfSense, Ubiquiti, etc.
1. Re:MikroTik by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  at that point, just set up a linux box and stuff it with mulitport network cards.. The cpus in mikrotik hardware are anemic once QoS is used.
Re:Is this meant to be SDN or just more proprietar by Cramer · 2017-03-30 12:51 · Score: 1

There are, indeed, such "white box" switches out there. They aren't 100% open as Broadcom isn't about to release the SDK for their switch chips. (and having worked with the mess, you. don't. want. it.) And it's Broadcom's chips at the heart of almost every manufacturers switches. (even Cisco and HP)
Dumb Fucks should try building a working router to by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 13:13 · Score: 0

FUCK...
users by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-31 02:45 · Score: 0

so these vampires are going to use linux for the OS then stick their own proprietary scum on top of it. typical corporate whores. we need to put these kinds of businesses out of business. we need to crowd fund engineers to do research and then we all get the open plans that we can print ourselves or pay someone else to print. all open hardware. verifiable boot. no blobs. no proprietary chips. same for everything else. pay people to do the actual work necessary. design, build, ship, etc.