In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.951118235535.11322D-100000@tigger.jvnc.net>, Gordon C ook writes:
Sean writes:
Thirdly, there are some very cunning ideas being proposed by various hardware people for making the 7500 do interesting things on the switching front that very probably will get the router to deal with the kinds of loads you're asking about.
COOK: does this mean that there is some way to get the cisco to behave like the cascade switch I asked about?? If not what in general does it mean?
Finally you said if the 7500 doesn't perform well then you might have to do the redesign I asked about.... meaning going to an atm switched backbone with routers at the periphery of the backbone??
******************************************************************** Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscript.: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Non Profit. $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate. Site Lic $650 Newly expanded COOK Report Web Pages http://pobox.com/cook/ ********************************************************************
We are bound by non-disclosure to limit what we say about future products of the vendors we have chosen for final evaluation. I don't think it is any big secret that vendors do have new products in the works. IMO- the so called "wall" is not a problem but you need some heftier routers than what is commonly used today. I don't like the idea of going into a layer 2 and letting layer 2 deal with it. You can probably build a working network either way. Equipment cost per port is not our highest priority, it is secondary. Stability and low loss in our backbone is a very high priority. That says a lot about why the technology we ar looking at is different than PSI, Alternet, and Netcom (and maybe a bit different than Sprint too). ANS charges more for a reason. Curtis