North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?
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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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 > > __ > [[email protected]] :: analogue.networks.nyc :: http://analogue.net >
|