[16705] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Core router bakeoff?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James B. Slayden Jr.)
Fri May 8 21:38:54 1998
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: "James B. Slayden Jr." <slayden@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov>
To: karl@mcs.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Yep,
That's about average for us to (see included SNMP gets):
James S.
Name: ACT
Model: products.17
Why? power-on
Uptime: 21 weeks, 1 days, 19 hours, 41 minutes
Name: LNK
Model: products.17
Why? power-on
Uptime: 23 weeks, 5 days, 18 hours, 50 minutes
Name: AGU
Model: products.17
Why? reload
Uptime: 41 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 36 minutes
Name: CPI
Model: products.17
Why? reload
Uptime: 61 weeks, 0 days, 19 hours, 22 minutes
(over a year!!)
Just a sampling of our many tailsite routers (around 200 or so)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James B. Slayden Jr. Network Engineer/DNS Administrator
slayden@nsipo.nasa.gov NASA Integrated Network Services (NISN)
650-604-6404 NASA Ames Research Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From owner-nanog@merit.edu Thu May 7 20:11:05 1998
> Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 21:30:21 -0500
> From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
> To: "Jason L. Weisberger" <jweis@softaware.com>
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Core router bakeoff?
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset=us-ascii>
> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.84
> Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> Content-Length: 2376
>
> On Thu, May 07, 1998 at 06:45:46PM -0700, Jason L. Weisberger wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> > > Well, the GRF has its good and bad points. I've tested one rather
> > > extensively, although I admit it was some time (~8-9 months) ago.
> >
> > I've been rather upset with Ascend over their lack of reaction to the bug
> > in the Pipe 150 that had it publishing ARP statments for every ip address
> > that went by its ethernet interface. Have you found their other products
> > to be better supported and safer to fire and forget?
> >
> > jlw
>
> Well, I got rather, uh, pissed at the MAX 4000s desire to publish both a
> /32 and a /29 route for all OSPF announcements on dial interfaces (which
> went unaddressed in the code for literally months) - particularly troublesome
> when you consider the limited RAM in those boxes (and the consequence of
> running out of it - it would just drop the OSPF process entirely!), not
> to mention a direct violation of the OSPF specifications and the cause of
> many complaints from other equipment which this generated.
>
> I've heard they have cleaned up their software act in the last several
> months; other than P130s as customer routers for DS1 users (of which we have
> a boatload deployed) I have zero *current* operational experience with their
> equipment, so my knowledge base on them is ~6-9 months old.
>
> Then again, I'm a SOB when it comes to standards complience, especially when
> lack thereof breaks something that we *NEED* around here (such as reliable
> service :-).
>
> I still don't like CISCO's RAS implementations, but I have to say this -
> for all their warts, including some business policies that I consider
> nothing short of INSANE, their router hardware and IOS still win the prize
> for uptime in my experience.
>
> A real example from our core:
>
> XXXXXXX-CoreX uptime is 38 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 49 minutes
> System restarted by power-on
>
> That's pretty typical around here; the last "power on" was to do routine
> maintenance on that particular device. :-)
>
> --
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
> http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
> | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
> Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
>
