Check out the White Papar referenced .... http://www.overpromisesunderdelivers.net/pdfs/Why_Cisco_Not_Juniper.pdf It has Cisco's usual White Paper format and their copyright stamped on the bottom which is also dates "9/11". If it's not Cisco or one of it's affiliates, I would expect them to be contacting their so called "Marketing" folks anytime now. If this really is Cisco .... i'm with Owen and expect a presidential bid announcement any second now .... Either way, it's pathetic. If someone is going to slander in the fashion the site has done, they should at least put a contact form somewhere for some feedback :) - Max On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> wrote:
One:
Looks like some random person registered this one. The domain and ip do not look related to cisco even though someone has falsely pasted their logo all over the site.
Another:
Does seem odd that Cisco would use Go Daddy. My first thought was a disgruntled (ex) Juniper Employee. Then again, Juniper did bash Cisco in its cartoon strips all those years. Payback???
I'm bit surprised people actually think where campaign site is hosted and who has registered domain can be used to predict who is responsible for it. Cisco marketing probably have tons of webshops from whom they buy campaigns, what ever company was responsibly for winning this bid happens to use godaddy and rackspace. Our marketing has bought campaigns which have been hosted in our competitors networks, they don't understand to ask from the bidder where and how will the pages be hosted.
-- ++ytti