I was surprised by the similarities between the 7507 and 7513. Why EOL
the one device that has a pleasing form factor ? There are MANY
providers who would be quite happy with ~ 600 mbps? That's a lot of
billings...
Alexander Hagen
Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
For additional port density a 3550 ?
What is better about the 7206 VXR ?
Alexander Hagen
Etheric Networks Incorporated, A California Corporation
527 Sixth Street No 371261
Montara CA 94037
Main Line: (650)-728-3375
Direct
Verisign submitted a very nice presentaiton with pictures showing
its proposal for monitoring all parts of the network including
ISPs, hotels, cafes, universities, etc.
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_document=6516088289
You can search for all other
I was surprised by the similarities between the 7507 and 7513. Why EOL
the one device that has a pleasing form factor ? There are MANY
providers who would be quite happy with ~ 600 mbps? That's a lot of
billings...
It's the 7505 that's EOLed. Possibly because it doesn't sell well
enough, I
Joe Schmoe,
At 01:19 PM 26/04/2004, Joe Schmoe wrote:
[..]
So the question is, if you need to build a fiber SAN
across several datacenters, do you have the ability to
have a real fiber connection between all of them, or
is it a virtual connection, where your fiber goes to
their routers, which goes
Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
For additional port density a 3550 ?
What is better about the 7206 VXR ?
Fewer software bugs, simpler platform, half the vertical space in the
rack, redundant power supplies,
Alexander Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was surprised by the similarities between the 7507 and 7513. Why EOL
the one device that has a pleasing form factor ? There are MANY
providers who would be quite happy with ~ 600 mbps? That's a lot of
billings...
I think there are long-term
Alexander Hagen
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS.
For additional port density a 3550 ?
Even a 2650 would do
What is better about the 7206 VXR ?
Fewer software bugs,
Not in my experience.
simpler
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
The AGS+ was manufactured in small quantities for many years after
commercial sales for all intents and purposes ceased, to support these
same customers.
How much common components / manufacturing did TGS share with AGS?
Pete
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
Alexander Hagen
What about a 7505 w/ RSP4/256 and 2 VIP 2-50/128s with 4 PA-FE-TXs.
I would get a 7507 w/redundant RSPs and redundant PS.
You'd get a 7507 (only if it were a choice between that or a 7505?), but
then at the end of your message, you
Just be sure you have the VIP's that can handle any features you
need or you plan to run with dCEF off and let
the RSP do the work. And that's true as long
as you are not running features on that platform
that require dCEF.
That's the most common deployment mistake I
see made with the 75xx
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Rodney Dunn wrote:
That's the most common deployment mistake I
see made with the 75xx nowadays. People want
to move to dCEF to get added feature capability
or either run a new feature that requires dCEF and they
don't consider the extra load on the VIP CPU's that
is
Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the one
true router for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that
may exist in this situation.
Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of
having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the
In an effort to keep from getting too vendor specific
on nanog I'll respond to you offline.
My initial response to Alex was aimed at giving him
something else to consider from a gotcha perspective along
with his other requirements.
Rodney
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:50:45PM -0400, [EMAIL
Title: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 or other vendor ?
Steve Gibbard wrote:
Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of
having enough memory.
I just accidentally ran into an ugly surprise turning up some 4006/SupIV's with full
Title: RE: Cisco Router best for full BGP on a sub 5K bidget 7500 7200 o r other vendor ?
Crap, sorry about the html.
Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
The AGS+ was manufactured in small quantities for many years after
commercial sales for all intents and purposes ceased, to support these
same customers.
How much common components / manufacturing did TGS share with
On 26 Apr 2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Aside from that, though... the guts were pretty darned similar, probably
identical. I've certainly swapped boards between [AT]GS systems with impunity
(we weren't worried about maintaining our certification!).
Yours for router necromancy and
--- Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The part I missed earlier is that I think Alexander
needs to buy the
platform. As of today I can not recommend buying any
7500 as even the
7507 and the 7513 are going to EOL sooner or later.
If you can't afford
a 7603, then the 7206VXR with NPE400G
David Barak wrote:
the m7i is a lot of power for not so much money,
If you know of one for sale for 5K, please let me know.
Rodney Dunn wrote:
That's the most common deployment mistake I see made
with the 75xx nowadays. People want to move to dCEF to
get added feature capability or
Questions arose while trying to explain proposed TCP fixes to my students.
Can y'all help me with these?
We were going over the Transmission Control Protocol security
considerations draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-00.txt document here when the
questions arose:
Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 26 Apr 2004, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Aside from that, though... the guts were pretty darned similar, probably
identical. I've certainly swapped boards between [AT]GS systems with impunity
(we weren't worried about maintaining our
22 matches
Mail list logo
