North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
grf == pipe dream. Alex 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. > > Rgds > > cjm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Horvitz [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:06 AM > To: Lane Patterson; Christofer Hoff > Cc: [email protected] > 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. > > Brian > > > >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 > >> > >> > > > > > > >