[16779] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Core router bakeoff?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil J. McRae)
Tue May 12 11:00:34 1998
cc: perry@piermont.com, "'Andrew Bangs'" <andrewb@demon.net>,
jcgreen@netins.net, nanog@merit.edu, neil@domino.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 May 1998 12:13:27 +0200."
<234EF43F481DD111A55400805F155A1327BACC@p-cygne.issy.cnet.fr>
From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org>
Reply-To: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:39:47 +0100
On Mon, 11 May 1998 12:13:27 +0200
GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS <herve.guesdon@cnet.francetelecom.fr> wrote:
> I use both CISCO GRF400 and GateD. I think that GateD is the best
> easy to use and develop public routing software. But even if the GRF400
> runs GateD, it's not as reliable as a CISCO 7500 per example.
> The GRF400 has to much bugs to be an operational backbone router.
> For example when you redistribute static routes via BGP, the GRF
> redistributes the adress IP of the non telecommunication port to.
This is rubbish and sounds like you haven't RTFMed. I redistribute
static routes throughout with the GRF and it works fine.
> The Ascend technical center is not helpful nor the documentation.
> And the performance are limited to an average of 50k pps per card.
I agree that the TAC is as good as useless the manuals of the GRF are
toilet paper, fortuently I've used BSD/OS and gated for a while so I
know my way around.
I've seen a GRF tested to more than 50000 pps so I'd like to hear how
you came to that conclusion.
> But with the time i think that the GRF could be a good alternative
> towards CISCO.
Its already is a good alternative.
Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking.
neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD-1.3 released! ftp://ftp.uk.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD
Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
