The GRFs started with gated, but throughout the time they were an
Ascend product the code base moved farther and farther away from
that. Unfortunately, the result wasn't ever quite ready for production
use, though not through any lack of effort on the part of the Ascend
GRF guys. Fortunately many
> It used a heavily modifed public that IEng worked on. The guys
> at IEng were fantastic and did a huge amount of fixing and feature
> adding of features. I think Cisco bought IEng.
Indeed they did, and they were purchased by Cisco.
-John
> As I remember, it used commercial gated.
It used a heavily modifed public that IEng worked on. The guys
at IEng were fantastic and did a huge amount of fixing and feature
adding of features. I think Cisco bought IEng.
Regards,
Neil.
As I remember, it used commercial gated.
- Original Message -
From: "Nicole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vadim Antonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: PC Ro
> yes, we tried those in beta. literally went up in flames, yes real
> flames. one of the more exciting routers made from washing machine
> parts i have ever seen.
We also used them but the number of issues in keeping the
cards routeing tables in sync just made them too unreliable.
> I used to work with an Ascend GRF (goes real fast) Router that was
> nothing more than a hacked BSD os running on a hard drive at first then
> they moved to a flash card that controlled some custom switching
> hardware.
yes, we tried those in beta. literally went up in flames, yes real
flames
Yep, that describes the old GRF400/800 to a T. It was gated.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Nicole wrote:
> I used to work with an Ascend GRF (goes real fast) Router that was nothing
> more than a hacked BSD os running on a hard drive at first then they
> moved to a flash card that controlled some custom
On 15-Jan-04 Unnamed Administration sources reported Vadim Antonov said :
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Getting to 1mpps on a single router today will probably be hard. However,
>> I've been considering implementing a "clustered router" architecture,
>> should scale pps
I can project a nearly infinite rate of growth in my personal income when
I deposit a $3.95 rebate check. It's a matter of defining the sampling
period.
The truth is, that kind of creative statistics is exactly what allowed
Worldcom (and the rest of the telecom) to get into the deep pile of
man
: It seemed that zebra was not following the RFC for OSPF.
This would be one advantage to Quagga over Zebra. It is my understanding
there have been many changes in Quagga to OSPF to make it
standards compliant.
James Edwards
Routing and Security
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the Santa Fe Office: Int
> traffic doubled and tripled in a year, it didn't go 10x.
actually, at the time, mo said doubled every nine months. and
it did.
randy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't say that I did it, but having a server with a backup OS image
in case your flash-drive fails isn't the worst thing in the world.
Especially for a remotely-adminstered POP.
Possibly I misunderstood your words: There's no problem having
backup image from networ
-
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
&
>> He also said that Internet is growing by 1000% a year.
> "we're adding a DS3 per day [to the network]"
and, at the time, both statements were true.
randy
You buy a OSM from Cisco and you can queue and do QoS based upon bgp index
or AS
Scott C. McGrath
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Michel Py wrote:
>
> > Deepak Jain wrote:
> > With a network boot OS for each POP, you can do
> > version control much much more easily.
>
> Th
--- Michel Py <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> If you have vendor C or vendor J, and all vendor C
> or J routers crap out
> at the same time, you're safe. Yes, you were down
> but so was half of the
> rest of the world, so it's obviously not your fault
> but vendor C or J's
> fault.
> Michel.
>
Bu
> he also said something on the order of "let's not bother to discuss using home
> appliances to build a global network."
Hmm actually I'm not so sure, the trend has been the opposite .. lots of PCs
instead of mainframes and dumb terminals and the Internet itself has been about
spreading out th
>If someone were to take *half* the software innovations which have been
>made over the past 15 years (a decent fib, interrupt coalescing, compiled
>packet matching rulesets, etc) and applied them as if they knew something
>about networking and coding, they could very easily produce a box using
>o
> This also is flawed, IMHO. What if you want to do queing or QOS based on
> BGP?
That doesn't make any sense.
You could only do the signalling for such a requirement in BGP and
that isn't too hard to implement but the actual work to do
QoS/queuing are in the kernel/OS/architecture irrespective
> It is not a joke - we had such scenario few years ago (it was 'gated vs
> Cisco and WellFreet vs Cisco'). And such scenario make Juniper back-bone a
> little dangerous (but I believe that JUNIPER debugged such problems long
> ago, so it is not a case today).
Yes this has happened a few times, a
This year is the 10 year aniversary of Demon using NetBSD/GateD to
talk BGP4 to Sprint, Pipex, JANET and GBNet on Sparc IPX and i486/DX2/66
boxes, 20,000 routes at the time as I recall. [10,000 new routes a year ?]
PC's as routers is a good way to save a few pounds [dollars!] only
if you don't e
> Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> Purchase SuperMicro U1 server, with 2 9 Gb SCSI
> disks (hot swappable).
Suddenly that cheap router ain't cheap anymore.
> Now, say, announce A crash Cisco IOS. 99.9% Internet backbones
> are Ciscos, so this announce breaks few Ciscos around and die
> - so you never kn
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:16:22 -0500 (EST)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You may find it interesting that both Linux and FreeBSD now
> have interrupt coalescing, and www.hipac.org is building a
> compiled ruleset.
grep usec_delay /sys/most/any/nic/driver/*.c
Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. -
TED]>
To: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
>
> > The main issues I have with zebra are:
> > 1. The need to install an OS on the host.
> > 2
There is one more interesting problem.
Let's, say, you install PC with ZEBRA and have all 120,000 prefixes.
Internet is _internet_, sometimes people make a crazy things,
and create a bad (misconfigured, or very long, or very unusual) announces.
Some announces are fatal for Cisco IOS, some for Zeb
> Deepak Jain wrote:
> With a network boot OS for each POP, you can do
> version control much much more easily.
This is seriously flawed, IMHO. I'd encourage my competitors to do it:
after the master image gets corrupted all it takes is a bozo tripping
the right circuit breaker and the entire POP
> I didn't say that I did it, but having a server with a backup OS image
> in case your flash-drive fails isn't the worst thing in the world.
> Especially for a remotely-adminstered POP.
Possibly I misunderstood your words: There's no problem having
backup image from network, but there's a prob
I didn't say that I did it, but having a server with a backup OS image
in case your flash-drive fails isn't the worst thing in the world.
Especially for a remotely-adminstered POP.
How many flash drives will fail due to overwrite in a year? 1 per 1000?
if even? Its an absurd solution for an e
> I also think that it is extremely important to seperate "what you can do
> with a redhat cd and a dream" from "what someone can do with PC hardware".
Absolutely correct ;)
> The bottom line is: You are only going to get so much performance when
> you forward packets through a box which is proc
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:34:00AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> > o) On a standard PCI but your limit is about 350Mb, you can increase that to a
> > couple of Gb using 64-bit fancy thingies
>
> The limit is not megabit/s, it's packet pe
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> o) On a standard PCI but your limit is about 350Mb, you can increase that to a
> couple of Gb using 64-bit fancy thingies
The limit is not megabit/s, it's packet per second (or rather, interrupts
per second). I-mix the average might be 350 megabi
He also said that Internet is growing by 1000% a year.
In fact I think that it is an extremely bad idea to use clusters of
enterprise boxes to build a global network.
--vadim
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > On the topic of PC routers, I've fully given in to the zen
> > of Randy
> On the topic of PC routers, I've fully given in to the zen
> of Randy Bush. I FULLY encourage my competitor to use
> them. :)
actually, i stole it from mike o'dell.
he also said something on the order of "let's not bother to
discuss using home appliances to build a global network."
randy
> One problem is that with Cisco, unless you are buying the largest
> platforms available, each Cisco series uses different underlying
> hardware with different performance characteristics and images. You need
> to keep track of lots of separate images and versions when doing
> upgrades. With a ne
>
> OSPF and ISIS, etc redistribution is a Zebra/etc function and I am told
> it is pretty good at these functions.
>
> >multilink PPP? With spanning tree on multiple VLANs? With peer groups?
>
> Most of these are OS functions, but I believe they support peer groups
> in the later editions of
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:06:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > ... and we care because? the router is a black box. if the output is not
> > what is expected, it matters not why. though understandable, it is still not
> > acceptable.
>
> and you blame zebra ?
There are so many many ma
Not that I am pitching Zebra/Quagga/Gated/a brand of chewing gum/...
The main issues I have with zebra are:
1. The need to install an OS on the host.
2. The need to harden it.
These are also part of having access to more features. If you can use them.
3. The possible hard disk failure (having *ni
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> o) lack of unified tools to configure and manage:
> Each of those tools has varied degrees of documentation,
> different configuration interface, vastly different
> 'status' interface, different support mailing lists, etc.
> It is much easier for a given organization t
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Getting to 1mpps on a single router today will probably be hard. However,
> I've been considering implementing a "clustered router" architecture,
> should scale pps more or less linearly based on number of "PCs" or
> "routing nodes" involved. I'm not
> The main issues I have with zebra are:
> 1. The need to install an OS on the host.
> 2. The need to harden it.
> 3. The possible hard disk failure (having *nix on ATA flash is no better
> given the actual limits in the number of times one can write to flash).
There are linux and freebsd distrib
> Have been discussing PCs for a bit but as yet not deployed one, as I
> understand it a *nix based PC running Zebra will work pretty fine but
> has the constraints that:
>
> o) It has no features - not a problem for a lot of purposes
>
> This isnt necessarily a problem for what I have in mind
I
>> almost all times I hear people saying there is problem
>> with Zebra or Quagga, more than half of all times it
>> is problem with their OS, not the daemon.
> and we care because? the router is a black box. if the
> output is not what is expected, it matters not why.
> though understandable, it
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "james" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Danny
Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, Januar
>
> no, i blame the solution. if fans in my switch keep dying, i blame the
> manufacturer of the switch for picking an unreliable fan manufactuer, not
> the manufacturer of the fan alone.
wrong. more than half of all problems i hear, the _fan_ is the OS or the
implementation by user, not zebra/q
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "james" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Danny
Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, Januar
> ... and we care because? the router is a black box. if the output is not
> what is expected, it matters not why. though understandable, it is still not
> acceptable.
and you blame zebra ?
if an equipment / vendor you have on your network is not acceptable, do what is
acceptable such as (get a
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "james" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Danny Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
>
&
almost all times I hear people saying there is problem with Zebra or Quagga,
more than half of all times it is problem with their OS, not the daemon.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:00:06PM -0700, james wrote:
>
>
> : Be real carfull with Zebra, I got stung big time !!!
>
> What I run is actually
: Be real carfull with Zebra, I got stung big time !!!
What I run is actually Quagga, despite saying Zebra.
Would you share your experiences ?
James Edwards
Routing and Security
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa
Store hours: 9-6 Monday through Friday
505-988-9200
: Which "no features"? I haven't played with zebra yet, but my
: understanding is that it supports a large subset of the IOS BGP config
: language including application of route-maps to incoming/outgoing routes,
: and therefore things like prepending, setting metrics or preference, etc.
: Am
On 14 Jan 2004, at 17:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Have been discussing PCs for a bit but as yet not deployed one, as I
understand it a *nix based PC running Zebra will work pretty fine but
has the constraints that:
o) It has no features - not a pro
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Have been discussing PCs for a bit but as yet not deployed one, as I
> understand it a *nix based PC running Zebra will work pretty fine but
> has the constraints that:
>
> o) It has no features - not a problem for a lot of purposes
Which "no feat
: o) This may be fixed but I found it slow to update the kernel routing table
: which isnt designed to take 12 routes being added at once
:
: Icky, could perhaps cause issues if theres a major reconvergence due to an
: adjacent backbone router failing etc, might be okay tho
This is the gen
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > http://www.imagestream.com/Cisco_Comparison.html
> >
> > How many of you would buy an Imagestream box to evaluate for
> > your next network buildout?
>
> For a relatively simple end-user BGP customer, it works fine. And the
> nice thing is it
54 matches
Mail list logo
