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. The Ascend technical center is not helpful nor the documentation. And the performance are limited to an average of 50k pps per card. But with the time i think that the GRF could be a good alternative towards CISCO. hervé ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Hervé Guesdon CNET/DSE/SDL/LIR Tel : 01 45 29 43 74 e-mail herve.guesdon@cnet.francetelecom.fr ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- what does a grape say when you step on it ? nothing just a little wine
---------- De : Andrew Bangs[SMTP:andrewb@demon.net] Date : vendredi 8 mai 1998 03:10 A : perry@piermont.com Cc : jcgreen@netins.net; nanog@merit.edu Objet : Re: Core router bakeoff?
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Jon Green writes:
but you are recommending a PC running GateD over a Bay router?
At the low end, sure. They're cheap as all hell, easy to remote manage, easy to expand, and very efficient. With the right software, they are pretty damn nice. Lots of NSPs use the things these days -- Daemon in the U.K. used to do nothing but BSD boxes last time I checked.
You mean Demon Internet ?
We've branched out into Ascend GRFs too now ... couldn't find a HSSI card for a PC that we were happy with, and the BSD-like feel of the GRF appealed to us (it's nice to be able to run your own binaries on your routers, like sshd).
Still have lots of PCs. Typical spec would be something like: P Pro 200, 128MB ram, OpenBSD 2.2, GateD 4.x, 4 Intel (or Digital) fast ethernet cards.
We're also having reasonable success with some of the 4-port ZNYX ethernet cards.
It's a solution that works so long as you don't want/need all the ethernets running at wire speed, and you're prepared to learn how GateD works. :)
Regards, Andrew -- Andrew Bangs, Network Engineering Manager, Demon Internet Ltd andrewb@demon.net http://www.demon.net/ http://www.demon.nl/
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.
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.
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>
participants (2)
-
GUESDON Herve CNET/DSE/ISS -
Neil J. McRae