RE: Is the PAIX Palo Alto taking a dump?
But LINX, Equinix, and other exchanges have been very stable on Foundry running both layer 2 and layer 3 code images. So I don't think all the blame falls on Foundry. I think a rigorous hardware/software support plan, aggressive management of vendor support, sufficient test lab, and conservative upgrade process are just as essential to stability. Of course what I really want for Xmas is a Force10 box ;-) Cheers, -Lane
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Granados [mailto:scott@graphidelix.net] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:12 PM To: Peter van Dijk Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Is the PAIX Palo Alto taking a dump?
Its extreme I believe.
Black Diamonds? On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:03:12AM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote: [snip]
They were; hopefully you mailed them and received an
answer to that
effect. A software fault took down one of the switches, and the vendor is being made aware of the problem they need to fix.
Given all the trouble AMS-IX has with Foundry, I'd like to know: what vendor is that?
Greetz, Peter
Lane Patterson wrote:
Of course what I really want for Xmas is a Force10 box ;-)
Cheers, -Lane
For sure! But how likely is it that they don't take the same road as Pluris did? Or to rephrase it: technically it sounds very sound, but does this hold also commercial wise? Regards, Arnold
I think a rigorous hardware/software support plan, aggressive management of vendor support, sufficient test lab, and conservative upgrade process are just as essential to stability.
No disagreement there, with the addition of a plan for when something slips through all the aforementioned. I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure.
Of course what I really want for Xmas is a Force10 box ;-)
I'd really like one for Christmas, too; it'll be very interesting to see if I can feel love for an input-buffered cross-bar switch again. Stephen
participants (3)
-
Lane Patterson -
Nipper, Arnold -
Stephen Stuart