[10009] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ascend GRF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Wed Jun 11 10:13:22 1997
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:00:11 -0400
To: Peter Leppik <pleppik@mail.wessels.com>,
"'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Daniel Senie <dts@openroute.com>
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=WAH%l=MPLS_GOLD-970611125830Z-15009@mpls_gold.w
essels.com>
PSI used to feed our site with a Cisco 7xxx and changed to a GRF400. The
OpenROUTE Networks RBX250 router we use to talk to it had no problems with
either. Actual packet throughput appears to be improved since the router
was swapped, which I assume was the reason for the replacement. I haven't
noticed a substantial difference in the speed with which the advertisements
roll in. Either upstream box pumped out the BGP advertisements when the
line first comes up at about 60% of the T1. Neither box pushes harder than
that.
There were some problems (non-BGP) when PSI first tried to activate the
GRF, but those appear to have been resolved.
At 07:58 AM 6/11/97 -0500, Peter Leppik wrote:
>I've been hearing conflicting stories about the Ascend GRF lately.
>Cisco claims that it doesn't really work as advertised in "realistic
>networks," but Ascend says this is because Cisco's routers melt down
>when the GRF feeds them routing table updates, so the GRF has to be
>throttled back to work in a mixed environment.
>
>Does anybody have any real experience here? Any information, pointers,
>anecdotes, or wild rumors would help.
>
>Thanks,
> -Peter
>
>
Daniel Senie mailto:dts@openroute.com
Sr. Staff Engineer http://www.openroute.com/
OpenROUTE Networks, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Proteon, Inc.)
