[51667] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Segrave)
Wed Sep 4 05:35:46 2002
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:35:20 +0200
From: Jim Segrave <jes@nl.demon.net>
To: "Nanog@Merit. Edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Reply-To: jes@nl.demon.net
Mail-Followup-To: Jim Segrave <jes@nl.demon.net>,
"Nanog@Merit. Edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020904074946.GA84187@dataloss.nl>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed 04 Sep 2002 (09:49 +0200), Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:39:25AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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?
>
> One Dutch ISP that shall remain unnamed (and is not one I work for or
> have worked for) deployed Extreme on AMS-IX, with Extreme's BGP
> implementation.
>
> It broke horribly. The Extreme BGP implementation, instead of sending
> their peers just their own prefixes, would send each peer *all*
> prefixes and then withdraw all but their own networks. However, doing
> this with tens of peers at the same time was too much for the Extreme
> itself, which died.
And another NL ISP - Demon - has used:
PC-based routers running gated. At low traffic volumes, they worked
very well.
A supplier I don't think I'm at liberty to name. When they were good,
they were very, very good. But when they were bad they were horrid.
Another supplier I don't wish to name. Mostly worked, but crashed if
you made even the slighest configuration change.
We're now on Junipers and very happy.
--
Jim Segrave jes@nl.demon.net
