RE: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
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@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@nodewarrior.net \ http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth "Nuthin' but Net!" \ ------------------------------------------------------ 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax
grf == pipe dream. Alex On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Chris MacFarlane wrote:
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@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@nodewarrior.net \ http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth "Nuthin' but Net!" \ ------------------------------------------------------ 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Mike Gaddis wrote:
Alex wrote:
grf == pipe dream.
You have a transposition error. It should read grf == dream pipe. ;-)
Hmm, looks like time for alt.religion.ios.vs.gated..... -David Mercer infiNETways, Inc. Tucson, AZ david@infinetways.net
participants (4)
-
Chris MacFarlane -
David Mercer -
Mike Gaddis -
nanog mail reader