North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
- From: nanog mail reader
- Date: Mon Aug 25 19:50:14 1997
grf == pipe dream.
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Chris MacFarlane wrote:
> Well they are out as we (ACC) have deployed them and the have worked well so far. We have had a couple of bug to date and Ascend has addressed them quickly. As for them being new they have been around for two years but I do agree that they need some polishing on the router management side.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Horvitz [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:06 AM
> To: Lane Patterson; Christofer Hoff
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
> Why, you know where to get one? And even if they were out, I'm not sure
> I'm want to deploy anything in a 60 node network pushing that much data
> which was so new.
> >Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail. He's our collective test case :-)
> >Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too?
> >On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Christofer Hoff wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >> We are in the development phase of engineering the deployment of
> >> approximately
> >> 60 POPs throughout the US. Our 'standard' configuration is normally
> >> based upon
> >> cisco equipment and more often than not consists of a 7513 connected
> >> to a Catalyst
> >> 5000/5500 via FDDI with the various internal LAN segments switched
> >> from there via FD 100BaseTX.
> >> We've begun to explore the viability of deploying the GRF for several
> >> reasons,
> >> not the least of which is cost and performance. Given (and taken
> >> with a grain
> >> of salt) the apparent performance differential between the cisco 7513
> >> and the
> >> Ascend GRF (the GRF outperforms the 7513 substantially in our tests,)
> >> my
> >> concerns are more operations-related.
> >> The GRF DOES support the 'full' implementation (including extensions)
> >> of
> >> BGP4 and the other 'vanilla' TCP services that you'd come to expect
> >> from
> >> a router (er, layer 3 switch?) of this caliber. Since it's NOT a
> >> cisco,
> >> we'd have to deviate and not utilize EIGRP as our IGP of choice, and
> >> deploy
> >> OSPF which poses its own set of issues.
> >> SO, the bottom line...has anyone else deployed multiple GRF400's with
> >> success.
> >> Ascend will tell you that UUNET has deployed (or is going to) a
> >> hundred or so.
> >> I want to talk to people USING the technology, not thinking about it.
> >> Your comments and opinions are welcomed.
> >> TIA,
> >> Christofer Hoff
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
> >> Charset: noconv
> >> iQA/AwUBM/3KcnRoVZYHVpX1EQKKwgCgsnu30mTvCXZRyH68TOWeq3z0uZkAnj0F
> >> Kmgl0te7Wq6AzsQ1/0GjMV5N
> >> =d5NC
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> ,,,
> >> (o-o)
> >> ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.---------------------------------
> >> Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is
> >> Chief Nerd, \ possible without a
> >> NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent
> >> \ madness!
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org \
> >> http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth
> >> "Nuthin' but Net!" \
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax