saku at ytti
Jun 16, 2012, 1:44 AM
Post #26 of 26
On (2012-06-15 20:19 +0200), Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
> Some customers actually dropped Cisco offering and went with the
> competition, when they've learnt, that the management traffic is for
> MANAGEMENT only. It can't pass the user traffic.
More customer education needed. However I see on-band mgmt eth almost as
useless as on-band mgmt rs232.
The key differentiator in CMP was, that it was OOB, it was not fate-sharing
I don't think it would be difficult for pre-sales engineer to demonstrate
the value to customer. And if customers does not understand, all the
better, they'll be clueless enough to buy AS to roll slideware network for
From cost point of view, TDP and pin count and real-estate obviously
matter. But there are CPUs where the CPU packaging itself contains OOB CPU.
Mainly desktop Intels. XEON unfortunately would need separate chip
If freescale QorIQ would have this feature, then we'd suddenly have true
OOB in every new equipment out there. And only reason it does not have, is
because vendors have not asked for it, and vendors have not asked for it,
as customers have not asked for it. So start putting true OOB as scoring
non-mandatory element in your RFQ, and we'll get this sorted down the line.
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/