Internet Network Security Blog

HP is responding to a Cisco Systems study, which said that HP's networking equipment is not as cheap as HP claims, by sharing industry figures that show HP's message is resonating with Cisco customers, a third of which are reportedly switching to HP. At the same time, soon-to-be-published survey results from Information Week show that, while Cisco maintains a commanding lead in networking market share, awareness of HP as a credible alternative is growing.

The rivalry between HP and Cisco has intensified in recent months (amid dueling research reports and industry stats in the networking space) since HP became a direct competitor to Cisco following its 2010 acquisition of 3Com. Because HP, with $122 billion in revenue, has substantial product development and marketing resources to throw into the networking space, analysts say it is in the best position, compared to other equipment vendors, to challenge Cisco’s ($40 billion in revenue) share of the Ethernet switch market.

According to Dell’Oro Group, Cisco’s share, based on revenue, stood at 67.7 percent in the second quarter, compared to HP’s 11.9 percent. While confirming the numbers, a Dell’Oro analyst says it’s too early to tell what impact HP will have on Cisco over the long term.

An upcoming Information Week survey shows that when IT customers were asked which brands of local area network (LAN) equipment they “use, have used or have evaluated in the last 12 months,” 84 percent mentioned Cisco and 33 percent HP, an indication of growing awareness of HP as an alternative. “It is yet another proof point of our leadership and the momentum we are seeing in the market,” said Kash Shaikh, director of product marketing for HP Networking.

Shaikh also cited the results of a second-quarter survey of Cisco resellers by the investment firm Robert W. Baird & Co., which showed that 75 percent of them said HP had “influenced” Cisco deals, which he said meant that the customer was “seriously considering” HP. In 33 percent of those cases, Baird reported, HP ultimately won the deal. HP also points to the Gartner 2011 Enterprise LAN Magic Quadrant report, which puts HP right next to Cisco in the much-vaunted category of “leaders” in comparing multiple vendors in a particular space.

In addition, Shaikh challenged Cisco’s dismissal of HP as offering just a “good enough network,” by citing the faster performance metrics of new HP products. Then he added this: “Cisco oversells and overprovisions the network, which Cisco does to maintain its market share, but they don’t consider what is right for the customer.”

The survey from Information Week -- which, like Network Computing, is published by United Business Media -- has some other encouraging news for HP, but it also documents how strong Cisco’s incumbent position is. The survey of 444 IT professionals was conducted in July.

For instance, while 25 percent of respondents said they were considering adding another vendor, and 10 percent were considering replacing their primary vendor, 60 percent were not considering any such changes, which would seem to favor Cisco. However, when those considering a vendor change were asked why, 47 percent said it was to achieve “substantial capital cost savings,” which would seem to favor HP.

HP has argued that buying networking equipment from them would save a company from 30 percent to 50 percent on CAPEX, while citing an IDC report from September 2010, which studied HP Networking-based IT systems at a range of 12 companies. The study showed that the companies were able to reduce their total costs of networking by an estimated 66 percent, achieve a 466 percent return on investment and payback on their initial investment within 8.4 months. The IDC study was funded by HP.

Cisco responded with its own study, released Oct. 10, that acknowledges Cisco’s CAPEX is higher than HP’s, though it put the range lower at 25-30 percent. But Cisco’s study, which it paid an unidentified consulting firm to conduct, calculated the total cost of ownership (TCO) differently, using a hypothetical enterprise of 10,000 end users. It calculated the five-year TCO Cisco premium over HP at a much smaller 4 to 7 percent.

In addition, said Ross Fowler, VP of Borderless Network Architecture at Cisco, there are other “intangibles,” such as the cost of network downtime, improved productivity and better security, that can close that gap and make Cisco the better choice. “Even though they’re intangibles, if they’re only in the 4 to 7 percent range, why take the risk of going with a so-called 'good enough' network?" Fowler said.

While arguing that Cisco is the better choice, Cisco is not ignoring the HP challenge, he said, adding “we are not being complacent.” Although the two rivals are engaged in spirited competition, challenging each other’s figures and claims, it’s still unclear how much of a dent HP will ultimately make in Cisco’s command of roughly two-thirds of the market, said Alan Weckel, senior director at Dell’Oro Group.

Weckel cites macroeconomic conditions that have distorted the picture. In late 2008, the networking market started to slide with the rest of the economy in the wake of the banking crisis and 2009 was a bad year for sales in the depths of the recession. Worse yet, Cisco was hampered by supply chain shortages, particularly from silicon suppliers in China. So, Weckel argues, when the IT market began recovering in 2010, Cisco’s numbers were “artificially low in 2009 and artificially high in 2010,” compared to the previous year and to normal market cycles. “To me, the verdict isn’t out yet on who is really gaining or losing share,” he said, looking to the first half of 2012 to see some hard trend data.

See more on this topic by subscribing to Network Computing Pro Reports Strategy: Unified Computing Stack Wars (subscription required).

Lately, the solutions I've analyzed through the lens of BYOD (for Bring Your Own Device) have usually had something to do with smartphone and application management. But Wi-Fi vendors are also well aware of the procedural and technical complexities spawned by clients that show up with all sorts of gadgets that need to simply work on the WLAN. Meru Networks has recently introduced a new feature set for their WLAN product line that helps with BYOD and other aspects of today's changing wireless landscape.

Among the concerns that come with a high BYOD factor are questions of policy. Regardless of device type, if I’m in the corporate directory and I authenticate to the WLAN, chances are very good that the requirements for my device setup and my allowed usage behavior are covered by policy. If it’s a device issued by my employer, the equation might be different than if it’s my own. And if I’m a guest to the WLAN and policy allows for guest access, ideally I wouldn’t have to jump through hoops to use the WLAN. Nor would the network be at risk just because an outsider is being given a little connectivity. Meru’s latest offerings answer all of these challenges.

When you run secure, enterprise wireless networks, one of the biggest challenges can be getting large numbers of clients properly configured to work the way your network needs them to. Manually configuring wireless client devices is unctuous when lots of device types and hundreds or thousands of devices need to be touched. My own silver bullet is the widely-used CloudPath configuration utility, which does a wonderful job of all but eliminating secure client configuration headaches regardless of what options are used. Meru now takes client configuration up a notch with SmartConnect. Based on magic acquired when Meru purchased Identity Networks, SmartConnect can configure both wireless and wired secure clients and is nuanced enough to apply different profiles to a device based on whether it is identified as a corporate asset or a BYOD device after it classifies the device. Powerful.

Meru’s SmartConnect also solves the issue of wireless guest access. This is an area where even those of us with top-end super systems have gone outside of our systems’ built-in guest features because they disappoint. With SmartConnect (which non-Meru users can also leverage, BTW) guest access is easy, and actually comes with security delivered via a wizard for pretty much all major platforms. As cool as this sounds, and I think it’s great, guests that show up with corporate locked-down laptops probably won’t be able to make use of it.

Also new with Meru’s latest releases are enhancements to System Director 5 software that further the system’s ability to automatically recognize and apply traffic-handling priorities to the likes of UC and VDI apps. Now, given the size of the facility in question, Meru makes controllerless branch WLANs possible as well. New high-capacity, 1U controllers have been added to the product line up, and the MC4200 offers a welcome option for two 10 Gig uplink ports. (Uh Cisco, where are you on the 10 Gig thing for your controllers?) Finally, new three radio/three stream APs (AP400) and integrated spectrum analysis in the AP433is either catch Meru up or move them ahead of the competition, depending on who that is. Meru sees their new hardware as the key to "a completely wireless edge", and claims 50% higher capacity than any enterprise solution today (I have to admit the voices in my head are mumbling something about "marketing math" as I write that).

Bottom line- Meru Network became famous for their unique single-cell wireless architecture, but the company shows they get the whole picture when it comes to business-class WLAN. Meru has built a loyal customer base with their unique approach to the RF side of the wireless equation, but are also maturing the rest of their features in ways that keep them competitive, if not progressive in spots. And now, even non-Meru shops might benefit from Smart Connect for client configuration and guest access, which can both be tough nuts to crack. No doubt Meru is banking on these offerings to open the door for more wireless infrastructure sales.

At the time of publication, Meru is not a client of and has no business relationship with Lee Badman.