---------- De : Neil J. McRae[SMTP:neil@domino.org] Répondre à : Neil J. McRae Date : mardi 12 mai 1998 16:39 Cc : perry@piermont.com; 'Andrew Bangs'; jcgreen@netins.net; nanog@merit.edu; neil@domino.org Objet : Re: Core router bakeoff?
On Mon, 11 May 1998 12:13:27 +0200 GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS <herve.guesdon@cnet.francetelecom.fr> wrote:
I use both CISCO GRF400 and GateD. I think that GateD is the best easy to use and develop public routing software. But even if the GRF400 runs GateD, it's not as reliable as a CISCO 7500 per example. The GRF400 has to much bugs to be an operational backbone router. For example when you redistribute static routes via BGP, the GRF redistributes the adress IP of the non telecommunication port to.
This is rubbish and sounds like you haven't RTFMed. I redistribute static routes throughout with the GRF and it works fine.
This problem happens only if you mention in gated.conf export proto bgp as xxxx { proto direct { all ; } ; } ; Then the IP address of de0 is redistributed.
The Ascend technical center is not helpful nor the documentation. And the performance are limited to an average of 50k pps per card.
I agree that the TAC is as good as useless the manuals of the GRF are toilet paper, fortuently I've used BSD/OS and gated for a while so I know my way around.
I've seen a GRF tested to more than 50000 pps so I'd like to hear how you came to that conclusion.
I tested a GRF400 with Netcom Systems Smartbits with L3 cards. Ethernet frames were 64 bytes long and the ethernet card of the GRF 400 began to drop packets when the aggregate througput reached 55000 pps.
But with the time i think that the GRF could be a good alternative towards CISCO.
Its already is a good alternative.
Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD-1.3 released! ftp://ftp.uk.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
This problem happens only if you mention in gated.conf export proto bgp as xxxx { proto direct { all ; } ; } ; Then the IP address of de0 is redistributed.
This isn't a bug. GateD is doing exactly what you asked - 'all' means all. You could configure this in several other ways to do what you want. If you aren't having any luck with the manuals or the TAC then try the GateD web site or mailing list(s). Regards, Andrew -- Andrew Bangs, Network Engineering Manager, Demon Internet Ltd andrewb@demon.net http://www.demon.net/ http://www.demon.nl/
Exactly - DIRECT != STATIC. As for CISCO (here directed is named as connected), as for GATED. No any bugs. On Thu, 14 May 1998, Andrew Bangs wrote:
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:58:42 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Bangs <andrewb@demon.net> To: GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS <herve.guesdon@cnet.francetelecom.fr> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Core router bakeoff?
This problem happens only if you mention in gated.conf export proto bgp as xxxx { proto direct { all ; } ; } ; Then the IP address of de0 is redistributed.
This isn't a bug. GateD is doing exactly what you asked - 'all' means all. You could configure this in several other ways to do what you want.
If you aren't having any luck with the manuals or the TAC then try the GateD web site or mailing list(s).
Regards, Andrew -- Andrew Bangs, Network Engineering Manager, Demon Internet Ltd andrewb@demon.net http://www.demon.net/ http://www.demon.nl/
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (3)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Andrew Bangs -
GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS