nanog mailing list archives
RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?
From: "Derek Samford" <dsamford () fastduck net>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:57:19 -0400
Another box I personally feel is very overlooked is Riverstone. They make an excellent box, the CLI is incredible (especially for maintenance windows. When will Cisco learn to have a Scratchpad or a commit feature?), and all-in-all they are a very feature rich box. The only *major* problem I had to do with BGP actually was a fault of their being RFC-Compliant. I believe this was about a year ago, they dropped the peer on a bogus prefix, that was being carried throughout the net (Originating from a Qwest client if I remember correctly.) Then again, I believe this affected more vendors than just RS. Derek
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf
Of
jeffrey.arnold Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 5:31 AM To: Nanog Subject: Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Deepak Jain wrote: :: 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? :: Foundry makes a very good, very stable bgp speaker. I've had them in
my
network alongside cisco's and juniper's for a couple of years now, and i've never run into any bgp implementation problems that i would
consider
major. A few annoying bugs here and there, but nothing significantly
worse
than C or J. Beyond the fact that not too many people are familiar with foundry's gear, I tend to think that foundry has lost face in the service
provider
world for non-bgp related issues. ACL problems and CAM size issues
have
come up in really large installs (multi GBps, hundreds of thousands of flows, etc). Foundry is also behind cisco and juniper in features -
GRE
and netflow/sflow come to mind. The ACL and CAM issues are supposedly fixed in foundry's jetcore
chipset
boxes, but i haven't seen any of those yet. Sflow is now an option,
and
from what i hear, their implementation is very very good. Overall,
foundry
still makes a good box - when you figure in the cost factor, it
becomes a
great box. I've also played with extreme, but the last i checked, they were *way* behind foundry/cisco/juniper in terms of their bgp stability and
feature
set. Overall my experience with extreme has not been a pleasant one. I know some people who love them however, so who knows. They seem to
make
good/fast layer 2 gear, but i've had some scary results with their
layer 3
stuff. -jba __ [jba () analogue net] :: analogue.networks.nyc :: http://analogue.net
Current thread:
- Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Deepak Jain (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Peter van Dijk (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Jim Segrave (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Neil J. McRae (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Peter van Dijk (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Jim Segrave (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Jim Segrave (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Paul Wouters (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Peter van Dijk (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? J.A. Terranson (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? jeffrey.arnold (Sep 04)
- RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Derek Samford (Sep 04)
- RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? alex (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Simon Leinen (Sep 04)
- RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Daniel Golding (Sep 04)
- RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Derek Samford (Sep 04)
- RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Derek Samford (Sep 04)
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Patrick Evans (Sep 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper? Miquel van Smoorenburg (Sep 04)