Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?

[Joe Shaw <jshaw () insync net>]

The new name for the BFR (Big F**king Router) is the GSR.  As much as I
like cisco and it's configurablility, The Ascend GRF is still a very
powerful box for a lot less than the biggest cisco out there that can't
perform close to it.  The only problem I have with the GRF is that if
you're a newbie to GateD, then it will take you a bit of tinkering to get
a working setup.  This was my case since I'm much more accustomed to the
Cisco way of doing things.  However, the GRF is a nice change.

Joe Shaw - jshaw () insync net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee


On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote:

> Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail.  He's our collective test case :-)
>
> Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too?
>
> -Lane
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Christofer Hoff wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > We are in the development phase of engineering the deployment of 
> > approximately
> > 60 POPs throughout the US.  Our 'standard' configuration is normally 
> > based upon
> > cisco equipment and more often than not consists of a 7513 connected 
> > to a Catalyst
> > 5000/5500 via FDDI with the various internal LAN segments switched
> > from there via FD 100BaseTX.
> >
> > We've begun to explore the viability of deploying the GRF for several 
> > reasons,
> > not the least of which is cost and performance.  Given (and taken 
> > with a grain
> > of salt) the apparent performance differential between the cisco 7513 
> > and the 
> > Ascend GRF (the GRF outperforms the 7513 substantially in our tests,) 
> > my
> > concerns are more operations-related. 
> >
> > The GRF DOES support the 'full' implementation (including extensions) 
> > of 
> > BGP4 and the other 'vanilla' TCP services that you'd come to expect 
> > from
> > a router (er, layer 3 switch?) of this caliber.  Since it's NOT a 
> > cisco, 
> > we'd have to deviate and not utilize EIGRP as our IGP of choice, and 
> > deploy
> > OSPF which poses its own set of issues.
> >
> > SO, the bottom line...has anyone else deployed multiple GRF400's with 
> > success.  
> > Ascend will tell you that UUNET has deployed (or is going to) a 
> > hundred or so.
> > I want to talk to people USING the technology, not thinking about it.
> >
> > Your comments and opinions are welcomed.
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > Christofer Hoff
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
> > Charset: noconv
> >
> > iQA/AwUBM/3KcnRoVZYHVpX1EQKKwgCgsnu30mTvCXZRyH68TOWeq3z0uZkAnj0F
> > Kmgl0te7Wq6AzsQ1/0GjMV5N
> > =d5NC
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >             ,,,
> >            (o-o)
> > ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.---------------------------------
> > Christofer L. Hoff            \  No true genius is
> > Chief Nerd,                    \  possible without a
> > NodeWarrior Networks, Inc       \  little intelligent
> >                                  \  madness!
> > hoff () nodewarrior net              \
> > http://www.nodewarrior.net         \ -Peter Uberoth
> > "Nuthin' but Net!"                  \
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >        310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax