Skip Links

Network World

Brad Reese

Cisco WAE 7371 vs. Riverbed Steelhead 6020 competitive lab test results

By Brad Reese on Thu, 01/24/08 - 3:16am.
Newsletter Signup

Miercom - The leading edge in networking information

Finally putting on their boxing gloves, the normally humble, modest and almost always embarrassingly shy Cisco, submitted their WAE 7371 network optimization appliance to Miercom Test Labs for a competitive comparison.

Cisco's opponent?

None other than the Riverbed Steelhead 6020 application acceleration appliance.

Test-bed Setup


Out-of-Path Scalability and Performance Test

The Cisco WAE 7371 sustained over 300 connections/second with up to 50,000 connections with minimal CPU load on the switch in the network.

However, the test results below showed that the Riverbed Steelhead 6020 could only optimize a fraction of the traffic applied under heavy load conditions and consumed more than 90% of the switch's CPU utilization.

Router CPU Utilization


In-Line Scalability and Performance Test

The Cisco WAE 7371 passed all in-line scalability tests.
Cisco WAE 7371 Sustains 50,000 HTTP Sessions while providing In-Line optimization


In-Line Scalability and Performance Test

The Riverbed Steelhead 6020 could not achieve the desired load capacity. The device would failover to pass-thru mode for nearly all connections when attempting to sustain 40,000 connections.

Riverbed Steelhead 6020 fails to achieve 40,000 simultaneous sustained HTTP connections


File Services and Server Utilization Test

The Cisco WAE 7371 reduced the server network load by 89%.

However, the Riverbed Steelhead 6020 doubled the amount of data required to be generated by the server.

Network Utilization % Improvement


Reliability Analysis Test

The Cisco WAE 7371 tested reliable and exhibited no signs of system instability or system lock up.

However, the Riverbed Steelhead 6020 exhibited multiple repeatable instances of issues that included: system false alert notifications, system instability and system crashes with heavy load.

Of particular concern, when the load applied was removed the Riverbed Steelhead 6020 could not recover by itself, nor resume normal operation without a hard power reboot of the system.

Obviously, the problems exhibited with the Riverbed Steelhead 6020 were very surprising.

Furthermore, they were repeatable despite firmware upgrade and different/multiple hardware platforms!

Riverbed Steelhead 6020 System Instability


Environmental Analysis

The Cisco WAE 7371 consumes 27% less power, 33% less rack space and 1,550 less BTUs/hour for cooling than the Riverbed Steelhead 6020.

Riverbed Steelhead Power


Read the entire lab test

Miercom stated that their intent was not to conduct kill tests, do you agree?

View 50 more Cisco competitive lab test results


Related Stories:

Network World Will Cisco ever catch Riverbed or should they just get out now?
Network World Riverbed, Cisco, Silver Peak, Blue Coat - Test Results

Contact Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com

Miercom: Why its tests are practically meaningless

0

1. Claim: Riverbed Steelhead appliance could not sustain rated capacity in WCCP deployment, consumed 90%+ of switch CPU, became unresponsive…

Miercom’s test purports to show that the Cisco WAE 7371 successfully ramps up to its fully rated capacity in a WCCP deployment while the Riverbed Steelhead appliance fails to do so. Vital elements of the WCCP configuration are omitted, but the test results strongly suggest that Miercom used a different WCCP configuration for the Cisco WAE 7371 than the one they used for the Riverbed Steelhead appliance model 6020.

In a WCCP deployment, a critical determinant of performance and switch CPU load is the choice of whether GRE or L2 is used for redirect and return of traffic. This aspect of WCCP on a Catalyst is likely what Miercom is referring to when they mention “hardware acceleration.” These parameters are negotiated as part of the protocol, and the default defined by the WCCP specification is to use GRE – which also imposes the highest overheads. Although Miercom does not provide enough information in the document to either confirm or refute this theory, it seems quite likely that this test simply exposes the difference in the switch’s performance in the two modes. Following Miercom’s rules as expressed in other reports, it’s OK to configure the Cisco appliance to use L2 and “minimally configure” the Riverbed appliance so that it uses GRE, even though such an arrangement renders the comparison meaningless.

2. Claim: Riverbed Steelhead appliance failed to pass-through mode on high traffic loads, in-path deployment…

For the second, in-path test, the Riverbed appliance appears to perform poorly – but the test is well beyond the appliance’s specified capabilities. The test generates 300 connections per second, each downloading a 512KB file. In a steady state, this arrangement has 300 connections starting each second while 300 others end. Simple math (300 connections/sec x 512KB/connection x 8 bits/byte) indicates a steady-state throughput of 1.228Gb/s of traffic was generated for this test. This is beyond what a single Steelhead appliance model 6020 would ordinarily be expected to handle, even on the LAN side. To support this environment, Riverbed would normally recommend a cluster of multiple Steelhead appliances.

In addition to running a test with too much data, Miercom also uses too many simultaneous connections. Careful wording hides this information from the casual reader, much as the report avoids stating the total throughput. The first paragraph describes this test as running “up to” 110% of rated capacity. This phrasing turns out to be either highly misleading or just plain wrong. Here’s why: the Cisco WAE 7371 has a specified capacity of 50,000 simultaneous connections while the Riverbed Steelhead appliance model 6020 has a specified capacity of 40,000 simultaneous connections. The description of the test as running “up to” 110% of rated capacity would likely lead a reasonable reader (and reasonable tester) to expect that the Cisco appliance will be driven to 55,000 connections and the Riverbed appliance will be driven to 44,000 connections.

Instead, a careful reading of the test results shows that the Cisco appliance was only driven to 49,997 connections (just barely under 100% of capacity) while the Riverbed appliance was asked to handle more than 60,000 connections (150% of capacity). Thus, the comparison is between a Cisco appliance at its specified capacity and a Riverbed appliance at an offered load of more than 150% of its specified capacity. Given the disparity of connections, it seems unlikely that the two devices were experiencing similar levels of throughput.

When confronted with traffic (both total throughput and connections) well beyond its designed capabilities, the single Riverbed Steelhead appliance performs as it should, which is to shut down operations in order to avoid adverse impacts to the network from the overload. This is the expected and desirable behavior for a device that is confronted with excessive demands from its environment.

For the only part of the test results that are comparable, they are actually quite favorable to Riverbed: the Riverbed appliance reaches its capacity and goes somewhat past it to 40,181 optimized connections in 3 minutes 45 seconds. Meanwhile, the Cisco appliance reaches 49,997 connections in 15 minutes (the only data point provided for Cisco in this test).

3. Claim: Riverbed Steelhead appliance was less effective at optimizing CIFS traffic than Cisco WAE…

Miercom claims that by running a test script of file operations, they proved that Riverbed was less effective than Cisco at optimizing CIFS traffic. Cisco has made this claim without any effect since September 2006, and Riverbed has previously refuted it; nothing has changed in the product since then to make it any more true. For completeness, we repeat the previous explanation here.

The claim of additional server load is misleading, although there are two grains of underlying truth. First, adding clients in a Riverbed environment will add load to the server, just as if the clients were added in the server's LAN environment. Second, read-aheads that are unneeded are an additional load on the server. However, we have yet to find any customer for whom either of these issues has been a problem in a real deployment. Read-aheads place a small additional load on the server when data is read that is not needed, but the majority of the read-aheads are used by the clients.

Miercom’s test simply exploits an architectural difference between Cisco’s approach and Riverbed’s. Riverbed has never claimed to offload servers in the data center, and in an environment like this test – one server, no concurrent usage, and likely a heavy bias toward read operations – it is not surprising that a cache would look good. The problem is that a cache’s apparent virtues in simple cases become liabilities at large scale or in complex cases. Riverbed keeps the server in charge of what data means and what data is served out while still providing excellent performance (as acknowledged by Miercom).

Any cache architecture, Cisco’s included, necessarily puts customers into the difficult situation of understanding when a server will serve data vs. when a cache will serve data. That complicates issues of access control, authentication, sizing, and security, as well as introducing challenges of ensuring that data is consistent.

4. Claim: Riverbed Steelhead appliance was less reliable than Cisco WAE…

Miercom claims that the Riverbed appliances “exhibited frequent and repeatable instances of system instability, false alert conditions, and system crashes when subjected to heavy load.” They also claim, remarkably, that “the test load conditions were well within the specified capacity of the product.” This last claim is easily refuted by simply doing the math on their reported load-test results: either their results are reported incorrectly, or the claim about staying within Riverbed specifications is incorrect, but there is clearly an internal contradiction in the report.

A screen shot of a Riverbed Steelhead appliance shows numerous alarms, and is intended to convey that the system is unstable. However, a careful examination of the screen shows that Miercom took some action to cause a rebuild of the RAID cluster. An identical screen can be produced by deliberately removing a disk drive from a running system. The screen is almost certainly not from any overload test that they conducted, since a system passing through excess connections would show an alarm for “admission control,” not seen in the screen shot. Without additional detail from Miercom, it seems likely that this screen shot just looked scary and is unconnected to the load tests described in the report.

5. Claim: Riverbed Steelhead appliance was less efficient and “green” than Cisco WAE…

Miercom notes that the WAE-7371 is a 2U device while the Steelhead appliance model 6020 is a 3U device, which is unquestionably true.

Intriguingly for a testing company, Miercom did not actually test any actual power consumption or cooling characteristics of the products. Instead, they claim to have relied on publicly available information. However, they did not rely on the actual published data for the Steelhead appliance’s thermal characteristics. The Riverbed Web site includes a specification sheet (full URL at end) that lists the Steelhead appliance model 6020 at 1450 BTU/hour and 425 watts. Miercom instead claims values of 5900 BTU/hour and 1140 watts. Miercom apparently got 1140 watts by simply taking a single power supply maximum (380 watts) and multiplying by three for the use of three power supplies. In fact the Steelhead appliance model 6020 does not need to use more than two power supplies, and does not require maximum power from those two supplies. Riverbed’s published numbers already incorporate the fact that the Steelhead 6020 has three power supplies, and would have been the right basis for comparison.

Cisco’s hardware installation guide for the WAE 7371 (full URL at end) also gives different power and thermal numbers than the ones Miercom used. We’re not sure why the discrepancy arises, but Miercom actually uses a worse heat output number than the official Cisco specification (Miercom says 4350 BTU/hour, Cisco says 3390 BTU/hour). There seem to be mathematical errors in all of these numbers, since none of the BTU/hour numbers are very similar to the watts numbers when simply converted. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, we can pick the smallest Cisco/Miercom number of 830 watts (which converts to 2830 BTU/hour). We then note that the WAE 7371 power consumption is approximately twice that of a Steelhead appliance model 6020 – not, as Miercom claims, a small fraction. In addition to its other virtues, the Riverbed product is more efficient and “green” than the Cisco product.

Specific questions that I would like a reply to from the Miercom.

1. In the WCCP test, are the Cisco and Riverbed units being tested with the same configuration of redirection and return, or is the Riverbed test using the less-efficient GRE mechanism?

2. How many connections were in the in-path workload for Riverbed? How do you explain the discrepancies in different parts of the test description between claims of 110% of rated capacity (44,000 connections), 40,000 connections, and the actual connection counts shown of nearly 60,000?

3. Why is there no in-path test result showing a Cisco WAE 7371 running at or above full capacity?

4. What happens to a Cisco WAE 7371 when you drive it to 150% of capacity, as was done for the Steelhead 6020?

5. Where did Miercom get their power consumption numbers, since they claim to have used publicly available data but the numbers don’t line up with either vendor’s specifications?

General questions that I would like a reply to from the Miercom.

1. Shouldn’t Miercom document their test setup and their data in enough detail to allow vendors and customers to replicate their tests?

2. Why does Miercom use different testing methodologies for different WDS vendors?

3. Of Miercom’s four clients, which WDS system is actually the best?

4. Why does Miercom think Miercom is repeatedly paid to test different vendors against Riverbed?

While we are not saying which is better or promoting either vendor, we are just presenting the facts that they left out.

Sincerely,
The WDS Underground.

WDS Underground ! ! !

0

WDS,

After being "SPANKED" so thoroughly, hopefully you will understand the need for me to regain my composure!

Sincerely,

Brad Reese
http://www.BradReese.Com

Miercom is historically

0

Miercom is historically known for their obvious vendor bias. Just go to their web site and look at their vendor list and you'll notice Riverbed, Juniper, etc. are absent. Also, Brad Reese is known around the NSP mailing lists as a Cisco cool-aid drinker. As a Cisco customer and shop, I can tell you the following from experience:

WAN acceleration (look elsewhere)
switches (Cisco ok)
IPSec VPN (Cisco ok)
router (look elsewhere)
firewall (look elsewhere)
IDS/IPS (look elsewhere)
SSL VPN (look elsewhere)

Cisco vs Riverbed

0

In "the Real World" the results of user testing in bake off environments based on their real networks always have found Riverbed to be the winner. This is a significant note if you consider that testing can be geared for specific results. In the real world we do not have such luxury!

Only Miercom

0

Yeah, why is it that the only "so called" 3rd party testing company for Cisco is always Miercom. Can't some other testing company reproduce similar results for them? All other bake-off tests (NetworkWorld, etc) consistently show Riverbed as the performance leader, time and time again. I will be interested in seeing if Miercom or Cisco can answer a few of the questions above to us clearly. Otherwise, most will deem this report a phony.

Justin Lofton
VP of Engineering

Tredent Data Systems, Inc.
http://www.tredent.com

Missing the issue...

0

Of course that Miercom benchmarks (as well as Tolly and others) are biased...

Any test can be tweaked to show that one vendor is better than the other, my biggest concern with both of these vendors, is that they are both severely limited! (especially for such EXPENSIVE devices)

lets do the simple math here, 40K or 50K optimized TCP sessions - hmmm what does that really mean? well in my case 40K sessions represented roughly 2000 users (just run netstat on your computer and see how many sessions you are using...)
Of course if you ask riverbed they say that you should expect 5 TCP sesssions per user - just outlook uses 13 session on my machine for some odd reason, Cisco on the other hand, after some arm wrestling, will admit that 10-15 is more reasonable assessment, however the information on NetQOS showed that we had between 18 and 22 TCP sessions per user.

We recommended a different vendor to the CIO (just look for the one that supports 256K TCP sessions), but he went with the "CIO friendly" option - Cisco (no one gets fired for buying Cisco...) in the mean time 6 months have passed, and we still can't get the Cisco gear to work, as their own PIX firewalls don't allow WAAS traffic through (don't get me started on that...)

Missing the biggest issue...

0

Of course that Miercom benchmarks (as well as Tolly and others) are biased...

Any test can be tweaked to show that one vendor is better than the other, my biggest concern with both of these vendors, is that they are both severely limited! (especially for such EXPENSIVE devices)

lets do the simple math here, 40K or 50K optimized TCP sessions - hmmm what does that really mean? well in my case 40K sessions represented roughly 2000 users (just run netstat on your computer and see how many sessions you are using...)
Of course if you ask riverbed they say that you should expect 5 TCP sesssions per user - just outlook uses 13 session on my machine for some odd reason, Cisco on the other hand, after some arm wrestling, will admit that 10-15 is more reasonable assessment, however the information on NetQOS showed that we had between 18 and 22 TCP sessions per user.

We recommended a different vendor to the CIO (just look for the one that supports 256K TCP sessions), but he went with the "CIO friendly" option - Cisco (no one gets fired for buying Cisco...) in the mean time 6 months have passed, and we still can't get the Cisco gear to work, as their own PIX firewalls don't allow WAAS traffic through (don't get me started on that...)

Cisco WAE 7371 vs. Riverbed Steelhead 6020 competitive lab test

0

Dear writer,

It's really sad that obviously sponsored reports like this
have no value for the reader. Nice that you make some money with it but please spare us with your greedy style of journalism.

To the networkworld team i recommend reading all article first before publishing it as reports like these will damage your reputation in the market.

I appreciate product comparison but please keep them objective.

best regards

This review is SPOT-ON

0

Look, we're a Cisco shop, but when we first tried the Steelheads we eventually returned, we had every reason to be optimistic. In fact, we had no idea Cisco had a competing line of products. (I'm not even sure they did at that time.) We were really hopeful this would reduce the volume of traffic we have going over our DS3's to our disaster facility. The Steelheads worked great! - that is, until the disk cache filled up, at which point they routinely crashed or operated slower than we were without them. That's right - they DECELLERATED our network. I'm not talking a little slower, I'm talking like a 45Mb circuit running at 100k. Riverbed pleaded with us to keep working with them to iron out the problems...we did for a while, but ultimately, we had to give up. This was a production enviornment, and we were experimenting with gear that was in beta form at best. Getting Cisco's WAAS up and running was a little more complicated, but the performance and reliability has been outstanding. Save yourselves the trouble and don't bother with Riverbed. Maybe when their product matures, it may be viable option, but if you're looking for here-and-now solution, Cisco is definitely the way to go.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

0

Interesting that only pay-to-play Miercom publishes favorable Cisco WAAS tests. Any product can be made to look good (or not so good) in a lab

The reality is, in the real world, Riverbed's win rate vs Cisco in customer environment bakeoffs is over 90 percent!!

Analysts like Gartner and Forrester and product tests from Infoworld and network consistently hail Riverbed as the performance leader by far.

Over 3000 Cisco network customers and counting selected Riverbed to go faster? Wouldn't it just be easier to add to their Cisco infrastructure? Obviously not.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Welcome, visitor. Register Log in
Advertisement:
About Brad Reese on Cisco

Brad Reese cofounded BradReese.Com Cisco Refurbished which offers one year warranties on Cisco Refurbished and Cisco Repair.

Contact Brad Reese

Archives
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
Categories
A government official in possession of a large corporate stockholding while that corporation is subject to administrative rulings by that same government official
After contacting Cisco
Agito adds that its enterprise fixed mobile convergence (eFMC) platform enables low-cost in-building voice coverage
Agito introduced Agito for BlackBerry
Agito's BlackBerry smart phone functionality for Cisco VoIP
Agito's RIM BlackBerry support announcement
An assortment of communications companies
Andreessen plans to watch what companies Cisco acquires
Andreessen sees as the next market transition
As a matter of Cisco policy
Back in April the CCIE Security track changed
Black Hat attack on Cisco's network admission control (NAC)
Boas also led an educational session at the Gartner Security Summit
Boas shares his insight on the most prevalent threats to the enterprise network
Bragging about Cisco's ability to catch market transitions
Brings enterprise VoIP over WiFi for dual-mode BlackBerry smartphones
But neither felt it as bad as Cisco did
Careers
Certified by Cisco-Linksys technicians via Linksys ISO certification procedures
Chairman and CEO of Cisco China - Jim Sherriff
Cisco
Cisco CEO John Chambers has never been shy
Cisco Chief Technology Officer Padmasree Warrior
Cisco NAC design flaws that the folks at Black Hat so alarmingly described
Cisco has held this share position since CY02
Cisco has produced a new CCIE count
Cisco has successfully made the market transition to selling refurbished Linksys directly to end users
Cisco is also offering its new home media ensemble
Cisco is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year
Cisco is the revenue-leading vendor overall with 38% of total network security appliances and software in 1Q09 (down 2.8 points from 4Q08)
Cisco merged the Linksys channel partner program into Cisco's registered partner tier
Cisco might do very well with the Flip
Cisco only counts your CCIE number once
Cisco registered the shoplinksys.com domain name to sell refurbished Linksys
Cisco released its new worldwide CCIE count
Cisco shouldn’t until it works out the kinks
Cisco's executive biographies web page
Compromised the Cisco agent installed on the end system
Confirmation testimony before the U.S. Senate noteworthy
Customer-proven best practices of network access control (NAC)
Data Center
Didn’t RIM already support voice over WiFi?
Doesn’t RIM’s Ascendent acquisition give them this?
Douglas Gourlay - Vice President of Cisco Data Center Solutions
Douglas Gourlay is as sharp as a tack and one of the most impressive people I've ever had the honor of collaborating with on Cisco stories
Dual CCIE #18532 Routing and Switching/Security - George Morton
Dual-mode BlackBerry smartphones
Enables BlackBerry to be integrated into corporate PBXs and Unified Communications systems
Enterasys NAC is agent-less assessment based on a network scan
Enterasys security expert Dennis Boas
Enterasys uses multiple criteria beyond end system health assessment to assign and limit access granted to an end system
Enterprise concerns about the financial and management aspects of NAC
Enterprises that have standardized on the BlackBerry platform
Exactly what's causing everybody to quack?
Famous networking industry journalist
Flexible options with Enterasys NAC
Flip video below of Chambers' doing his quacks
Flip video of Cisco CEO John Chambers performing his duck quacks
Further details on why Cisco has lost market share in network security
Gourlay was featured just 7 days earlier in the Cisco Data Center Networks blog story
Gourlay's office is located at Cisco's nearby headquarters in San Jose
Half the smartphones in use in the US today are BlackBerry devices
Hogtied by Cisco's new committee culture
How Cisco was working overtime AGAINST the Buy America provisions of the $7.2B broadband stimulus fund
I can still see those wishing to cash out selling to Cisco
I have worked for a handful of telecommunications companies of varying sizes
I voted for President Obama seeking change
Independent companies operating in Silicon Valley able to out innovate Cisco
Interesting CCIE news from around the world
Is Cisco getting ready to sell its refurbished gear directly to end users too?
Is Cisco likely to innovate? No
Its been proven that a government official can be bribed with free dinners
Jeff Wilson - network security analyst at Infonetics Research
Joel Bion - Senior Vice President of Cisco's Product Resiliency Research
Juniper and Check Point are second and third with 10.4% and 9.5% respectively
LANs / WANs
Larry Strickling is confirmed as the new Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
Last month Cisco missed the multiple CCIE numbers
Linksys by Cisco Certified Refurbished Product
Linksys by Cisco Wireless Home Audio System
Made by Strickling during his March 19
Manny Rivelo - Senior Vice President of Cisco's Development Organization
May 2009 vs. June 2009 Worldwide CCIE Count Comparison
Mobile features integrated into the BlackBerry
My previous government service at the FCC provide me a unique background for the position of Assistant Secretary
My source suggested Gourlay had left Cisco
Network security vendor Enterasys
Not only among the Cisco workforce
Not too many senior executives are around from Cisco's early days
Now it appears the Internet is quacking too
Omitted the years of Cisco service for both John Morgridge and Richard Justice because they are no longer full-time Cisco executives
Only 66% of all applicants who passed were for the CCIE Router and Switch track
Only one CCIE is a member of Cisco's 59 strong senior executive team
Out innovate Cisco simply because they have no desire to be acquired
Pacific Rim CCIE numbers didn't change over the last 39 days
Pejman Roshan - Chief Marketing Officer of enterprise fixed mobile convergence (eFMC) vendor Agito Networks
Ponemon Institute reported
Post a comment to Cisco's blog that contains a link to your duck quacking video
R & S + Security this year as the most popular dual CCIE track
R & S + Service Provider was 49% of the successful attempts for dual CCIE
RIM offers only data services over WiFi on their dual-mode smartphones
Refurbished product are mostly customer returns that meet original factory specifications
Refurbished product sold in the United States
Responsible for Cisco's IOS Software
SMB
Security
Security mechanisms are used to validate the integrity and authenticity of the Enterasys agent for all server/agent communications
Security sales will come back for Cisco
Showed that Stickling owned a large Cisco stock position
So we had 251 new CCIEs
Subject of Cisco's senior executive team came up
The CEO of Cisco quacked
The Cisco workforce quacked
The IOS 12.4 track with ISR routers is slowing down the Security CCIE track
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) granted Cisco its coveted Buy American Exception
The average tenure would be of the 61 executives listed on Cisco's Mount Rushmore
The best duck call will win a new Flip Mino HD from John Chambers
The change in the CCIE Security track has had a major impact on new security CCIEs
View Cisco's flash promotion for its home media ensemble
VoIP / Convergence
We build our culture at Cisco around catching market transitions
We can confirm that Doug Gourlay is no longer with Cisco and we wish him well in his future endeavors
We're also now starting to see the CCIE Wireless track
We've experienced a new low for CCIE Security track
What exactly has Agito Networks announced this week?
What's your take on the implications of the new worldwide Cisco CCIE count?
What's your take on why Douglas Gourlay left Cisco and where do you think he will land?
Which had Gourlay inviting guests to Cisco Live in the following video
Which video quacks you up the most?
Why is cellular-only PBX and UC integration incomplete?
Why the Enterasys NAC solution is doing so well
Why the Enterasys NAC solution is in such high demand
Wireless / Mobile
Without ducking my question
Would you back the technology vision of Marc Andreessen
You too will understand why duck quacking has become such an overnight sensation
On The Web
Twitter