[27863] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cisco's CNR vs ISC Bind/DHCP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Novak)
Mon Mar 20 19:55:18 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000320194034.00a51848@pop.apk.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:44:28 -0500
To: fkittred@sss1.gwi.net, nanog@merit.edu
From: Thomas Novak <kavon@apk.net>
In-Reply-To: <200003202043.e2KKhSL02000@sss1.gwi.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
If you are looking at CNR and are running in a cable modem
Have you inquired/looked at the Cisco CSRC product for provisioning it?
You might want to look at CNR as it is part of the CSRC solution for
provisioning/managing not only Cisco but any DOCSIS compliant cable modem
_Thomas
At 03:43 PM 3/20/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:26:30 PST "Ron Buchalski" wrote:
> >
> > Well, Fletcher, considering that you probably don't know anything about
> the
> > product, do you really feel it necessary to publicly bash it? On what
> > information to you base your bold assertion?
>
>Ron;
>
> I would agree with your conclusion, if your base assumption is
>correct, which it is not. Right now, we are running CNR in production
>in one cable modem network. We are running the ISC DHCP/DNS suite on
>several other networks, one of them cable modem.
>
> We are about to deploy an additional cable network and a DSL
>network. Before using ISC again, I wanted to check that there had
>been no change in Cisco CNR status, that might lead us to do a full
>blown evaluation again (these things cost money.) I haven't turned up
>any evidence that there have been any changes useful to larger
>installations like ours. If you have information to the contrary,
>please let me know.
>
>thanks!
>fletcher
