North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
> 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
> 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
> major. A few annoying bugs here and there, but nothing significantly
> 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
> world for non-bgp related issues. ACL problems and CAM size issues
> come up in really large installs (multi GBps, hundreds of thousands of
> flows, etc). Foundry is also behind cisco and juniper in features -
> and netflow/sflow come to mind.
> The ACL and CAM issues are supposedly fixed in foundry's jetcore
> boxes, but i haven't seen any of those yet. Sflow is now an option,
> from what i hear, their implementation is very very good. Overall,
> still makes a good box - when you figure in the cost factor, it
> 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
> 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
> good/fast layer 2 gear, but i've had some scary results with their
> [firstname.lastname@example.org] :: analogue.networks.nyc :: http://analogue.net