North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
I hate to whip a dead horse, but letting stuff like this pass as accepted is probably not the best thing... > <[email protected]> writes: > > well if you're going to compare ciscos and bay networks routers, > consider that Bay networks supports Rip, OSPF, BGP, and EGP. They do > *NOT* support communities in their production software, Actually, its in 11.0, which is now production software, and i *think* it might even have made it into 10.x. No confederations AFAIK. > and they have *NO* > intentions of *EVER* supporting confederations. In adition, to handle > subnets, where you want the thing to summarise a subnet into a classful > route, the Bay's solution is to drop the route entirely. I you mean the trait of using classfull mask defaults for route aggregation, yes that is/was an issue. I think 11.0 has a switch to turn that off now though (if not production, one of the workspaces). Its not a major issue really, as this can easily be accomplished with policy filters, which is how we do it. I would say this is the preferable way to do it, as it isolates bogus IGP information and makes troubleshooting much easier. > They also don't > seem to understand how to aggregate routes. Their solution there is also > to drop the route. They do not appear to have the option to announce the > aggregate with the routes. They also do not appear to have the option of > aggregating since the option they provide does not work. Their SNMP > agent only works on a few platforms, and in order to adequately solve a > routing problem, you need to have a *GOOD* understanding of the MIB. This is false. I used to believe this too, and am quite familiar with the MIBs as a result. But then there is TI scripting, and it made life much simpler (at least, it made wfIpBaseRtEntry.7.* much easier to type). The ip commands in 10.x also make this easier. Of course, this is all if you're a die-hard CLI fan. > last time I enabled syslog on the box, the router reloaded several times > within a 5 hour period, causing instability in our small network, small > meaning under 200 routes. Can't speak for this, as i do local logging, not syslog. However, we currently have several Bay boxes with full internet routes and multiple peers, and the only problem i've had recently is from a Cisco peer feeding me bad announcements. > I have fought with these things for 3 years > now and haven't seen much improvements. They have been promising NTP > support for quite some time now, since their routers don't have a > battery-powered clock. Maybe the reason they can switch packets faster NTP client is in 11.0, though not server. > and more reliably than ciscos is because they are unable to be placed in > a situation to really test their skills. The items I have shown here > make it VERRY difficult to allow one of these things to perform with > full routing because you cannot determine what it will do. We have actually seen quite a bit of improvement (and i'll be the first to admit, there was a lot of room for it). However, i'm not sure i agree with your statement about 'full routing'. We are running BGP, RIP, and OSPF all here, in various nodes, without serious problems. True, you do need to have a good understanding of accept/announce policies, but i find the performance/capability more than acceptable. - jeremy // Jeremy Hinton Visionary Systems, Inc. // [email protected] http://www.visi.net // Network Engineer Newport News, VA // A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|