- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Ron Buchalski 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Joseph, To make a fair comparison between your 7500 and your new GRF, are you going to configure your 7500 to be comparable? Put an RSP4, VIP2-40 interface processors, and CEF code (otherwise known as distributed FIB) into the 7500 to make it fair. You'll see what a modern 7500 can REALLY do. Cisco has made quite a few advancements/modifications to the original 7500 over the past two years, a fact that seems to have escaped the folks at the Tolly Group. The more interesting data published by the Tolly report clearly indicates that the GRF has a LONG way to go to meet the performance objectives described in Ascend's product literature. Compare the numbers yourself. -rb ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by hoff＠nodewarrior.net 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

-----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(a)nodewarrior.net \ http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth "Nuthin' but Net!" \ ------------------------------------------------------ 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax

6 5

Re: Router management at MAE-East and MAE-West
by Joe McGuckin 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

For MAE-WEST, you could use Frigate Networks (Charlie Slater, cslater @frigate.com) They do PC & router work & they have reasonable pricing. -joe

1 0

Re: Netrail woes
by William Allen Simpson 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

> From: Ehud Gavron <GAVRON(a)ACES.COM> > "No bible-toting fool who won't pay his bills will be > in business long." - Ehud (look it up, it's in the same book.) > Enough with the Bible (and person) bashing. He said they were a charge for circuits never ordered. I've seen a bit of the same myself, and thus I believe him. I've also seem multiple installation charges for the same order, charges for interior cabling when I personally did the wiring from the network interface, and a fair number of other shenanigans. However, in this litiginous world, the correct approach is to pay the disputed billing, give them 5 days notice to refund the overcharge, and then sue them, including fees and costs. (Although I've never had to do this over $300K, which isn't exactly pocket change.) Fortunately, the Uniform Commercial Code gives a reasonable rate of return on the interest: 1% a month from date of filing. Somewhat better than I can get at the local bank.... I usually take plenty of time to conclude the dispute after filing, for that very reason. The big guys hold their very bigness over your head to force payment, so you might as well take advantage of their natural slowness. :-) Hopefully, he has a good lawyer. WSimpson(a)UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson(a)MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

2 1

My hastily chosen words.
by Ehud Gavron 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

I should have trimmed the CC list. I apologize for the comments, inappropriate as they were, as well as wasting your time with them. Ehud

1 0

Router management at MAE-East and MAE-West
by Wookie 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question... I work for an ISP and we're looking at hooking up our own links to MAE-East and MAE-West. A problem we forsee is that we're 1,000+ miles from both of these locations, and we'd rather not have to drop everything and jump on a flight if the router goes down and needs a reboot or hardware replacement, and we dont really want to have to take on an employee living near each MAE to do this stuff. How do other ISPs deal with hardware problems at remote MAEs? Someone told me that there are companies (possibly MFS themselves?) who can do 24x7router hardware management, and even install the router in the first place. Does anyone have experience of these services? Are they reliable? Can they provide "out of band" router access, eg through the console serial port to a console server? Any contact details would also be very helpful. Thanks! Wookie

4 3

RE: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Chris MacFarlane 26 Aug '97

26 Aug '97

Well they are out as we (ACC) have deployed them and the have worked well so far. We have had a couple of bug to date and Ascend has addressed them quickly. As for them being new they have been around for two years but I do agree that they need some polishing on the router management side. Rgds cjm -----Original Message----- From: Brian Horvitz [SMTP:horvitz@mediaone.net] Sent: Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:06 AM To: Lane Patterson; Christofer Hoff Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch? Why, you know where to get one? And even if they were out, I'm not sure I'm want to deploy anything in a 60 node network pushing that much data which was so new. Brian >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(a)nodewarrior.net \ >> http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth >> "Nuthin' but Net!" \ >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax >> >> > >

4 3

flow export and cflowd
by Dorn Hetzel 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

An operational report: We installed rsp-p-mz.111-13a.CA1.bin this weekend on one router in Atlanta. So far, so good, no meltdowns or mystery behavior. We are also now exporting version 5 flow data to cflowd running on Linux (slackware flavor) with no problems. Linux wasn't listed as a tested OS, but no problems were encountered; the ./configure; make; make install process did the trick with no glitches. For anyone considering giving it a try, cflowd was painless to set up and is producing very cool data even on our first day with it. A big thanks to the authors for some great bits. -Dorn

1 0

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
by Brian Horvitz 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

Why, you know where to get one? And even if they were out, I'm not sure I'm want to deploy anything in a 60 node network pushing that much data which was so new. Brian >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(a)nodewarrior.net \ >> http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth >> "Nuthin' but Net!" \ >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax >> >> > >

2 1

Re: NACAMAR and ICMP at Mae-east (fwd)
by Eric D. Madison 25 Aug '97

25 Aug '97

This issue has been resolved. Thanks for the info guys! Eric ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 21:17:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Trede <tom(a)nacamar.de> To: Richard Almeida <rpa(a)insnet.net> Cc: "Eric D. Madison" <madison(a)acsi.net>, peering(a)nacamar.net, landi(a)nacamar.net Subject: Re: NACAMAR and ICMP at Mae-east Hello, this has been resolved meanwhile. Please forward this information to NANOG, too. Thank you, Richard. -tom On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Richard Almeida wrote: > Hi Eric > > Ive copied this mail to Klaus (landi(a)nacamar.net) and Thomas (trede(a)nacamar.net) > who speaks English, and will probably fix the problem .. (i rehashed the > subject line to draw his attention) > > Ive copied below the contact details from the UK peering point LINX (on > www.linx.net/admin.html) for the UK subsidiary of nacamar, who Im sure can > contact the German net admin guys aswell if you call them > > support(a)nacamar.net.uk Noc email > +44 1438 715607 Noc fax > +44 941 114133 Noc 24 hour > peering(a)nacamar.net.uk Peering contact > > I havent copied this back onto NANOG list on purpose. > > Richard > > > In a previous message Eric D. Madison wrote: > > > > There are still a lot of broadcast ICMP's at Mae East and they are coming > > from Nacamar's Interface. I have tried to contact them, but they are not > > cooperative. Anyone have a good POC for them that speaks English and > > might be willing to help? > > > > Eric > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - > > ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group > > 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc(a)acsi.net > > > > > > > > > -- > Richard Almeida email: rpa(a)insnet.net > Technical Director phone: +44 181 296 9201 > Internet Network Services Ltd fax: +44 181 296 9282 > The Education Exchange Ltd (EDEX) mobile: /dev/null ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Trede NACAMAR Data Communications Senior Network Engineer P.O.Box 102262 63268 Dreieich / Germany e-mail: trede(a)nacamar.net voice: +49-6103-993-910 www : www.nacamar.net fax : +49-6103-993-999 -------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0