|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
The new name for the BFR (Big F**king Router) is the GSR. As much as I like cisco and it's configurablility, The Ascend GRF is still a very powerful box for a lot less than the biggest cisco out there that can't perform close to it. The only problem I have with the GRF is that if you're a newbie to GateD, then it will take you a bit of tinkering to get a working setup. This was my case since I'm much more accustomed to the Cisco way of doing things. However, the GRF is a nice change. Joe Shaw - [email protected] NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote: > Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail. He's our collective test case :-) > > Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too? > > -Lane > > 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! > > [email protected] \ > > http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth > > "Nuthin' but Net!" \ > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax > > > > > >
|