Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
-----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
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
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
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?
We have been trying to get a BFR (now GSR) in, but I think Cisco does not want a GSR next to a GRF or something. :-) Nathan Stratton President, CTO, NetRail,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. - Psalm 33:16
At 08:35 PM 8/25/97 +0000, Nathan Stratton wrote:
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?
We have been trying to get a BFR (now GSR) in, but I think Cisco does not want a GSR next to a GRF or something. :-)
Nathan Stratton President, CTO, NetRail,Inc.
There are GSR's next to GRF's in other locations, don't worry. Any explanation on what happened at the NAP this weekend? Enquiring minds want to know. ************************************************************** Justin W. Newton voice: +1-650-482-2840 Senior Network Architect fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net Legislative and Policy Director, ISP/C http://www.ispc.org "The People You Know. The People You Trust." **************************************************************
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 10:20:50 -0700 hoff@nodewarrior.net (Christofer Hoff) wrote:
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.
Yes I have a pile of them, they work well, but there are alot of gotchas on them. UUNET are using them now btw:
Trying 137.39.110.142... Connected to 105.ga025.XR4.NYC1.Alter.Net. Escape character is '^]'.
Ascend Embedded/OS 1.3 (XR4.NYC1.Alter.Net) (ttyp0)
User: Connection closed by foreign host.
And if you've not used gated before I'd recommend using PC's to do a mock up of your planned backbone. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
participants (6)
-
hoff＠nodewarrior.net -
Joe Shaw -
Justin W. Newton -
Lane Patterson -
Nathan Stratton -
Neil J. McRae