Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?

  • From: Derek Samford
  • Date: Wed Sep 04 11:05:58 2002

Another box I personally feel is very overlooked is Riverstone. They
make an excellent box, the CLI is incredible (especially for maintenance
windows. When will Cisco learn to have a Scratchpad or a commit
feature?), and all-in-all they are a very feature rich box. The only
*major* problem I had to do with BGP actually was a fault of their being
RFC-Compliant. I believe this was about a year ago, they dropped the
peer on a bogus prefix, that was being carried throughout the net
(Originating from a Qwest client if I remember correctly.) Then again, I
believe this affected more vendors than just RS.

Derek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf
Of
> jeffrey.arnold
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 5:31 AM
> To: Nanog
> Subject: Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?
> 
> 
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
> 
> ::  Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
> ::  (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
> ::  the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or just
> ::  interest?
> ::
> 
> Foundry makes a very good, very stable bgp speaker. I've had them in
my
> network alongside cisco's and juniper's for a couple of years now, and
> i've never run into any bgp implementation problems that i would
consider
> major. A few annoying bugs here and there, but nothing significantly
worse
> than C or J.
> 
> Beyond the fact that not too many people are familiar with foundry's
> gear, I tend to think that foundry has lost face in the service
provider
> world for non-bgp related issues. ACL problems and CAM size issues
have
> come up in really large installs (multi GBps, hundreds of thousands of
> flows, etc). Foundry is also behind cisco and juniper in features -
GRE
> and netflow/sflow come to mind.
> 
> The ACL and CAM issues are supposedly fixed in foundry's jetcore
chipset
> boxes, but i haven't seen any of those yet. Sflow is now an option,
and
> from what i hear, their implementation is very very good. Overall,
foundry
> still makes a good box - when you figure in the cost factor, it
becomes a
> great box.
> 
> I've also played with extreme, but the last i checked, they were *way*
> behind foundry/cisco/juniper in terms of their bgp stability and
feature
> set. Overall my experience with extreme has not been a pleasant one. I
> know some people who love them however, so who knows. They seem to
make
> good/fast layer 2 gear, but i've had some scary results with their
layer 3
> stuff.
> 
> -jba
> 
> __
>  [jba@analogue.net] :: analogue.networks.nyc :: http://analogue.net
> 






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.