nanog mailing list archives
Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
From: Jon Green <jon () netins net>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:28:11 -0500
On Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:23:15 +0400, alex () relcom eu net writes:
Another pragmatic solution is to call the editors of comm week, network world, data communications and suggest that they might get a lot of mileage writing a story comparing and contrasting the performance of ISPs. They do this for routers, bridges, FR services so they can probably find a respectable consulting/measurement group to collectYes, they do. It would be better (sometimes) if they did not -:) When I read their comparations I sometimes think to drom all my hardware (BAD in terms of this magasines) and bue new one (Bay Networks as BB routers, FORE ATM as ATM , etc...). Through it's strange idea (for example) to compare hight-end Bay router with CS7200 (middle-range router), or to
You're probably thinking of the Network World review a few months back. As I understood it, Network World asked Cisco, Bay, and 3com to submit their high-end router for testing, and Cisco submitted the 7200. This had me a bit confused, too. Even with my limited Cisco knowledge, I know a 7200 isn't a high-end router. Someone told me that they probably submitted it because the 7200 had Netflow and the others didn't or something. Of course, Cisco dumped Netflow shortly after they came out with it, so I'm not sure what that tells you.. Why do you think it's bad that these reviews make you want to buy new hardware? Personally, I enjoy seeing what the competition is offering. Maybe by having Bay's BCN blow away the competition on packet throughput, it will encourage Cisco to get off their asses and build a scalable router that doesn't need to be replaced every year. And maybe it will encourage 3com to.. well... build a decent router period. :) -Jon ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Jon Green * Wide-Area Networking Technician * * jon () netINS net * Iowa Network Services, Inc. * * Finger for Geek Code/PGP * 312 8th Street, Suite 730 * * #include "std_disclaimer.h" * Des Moines, IA 50309 * ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Kent W. England (Oct 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Peter Ford (Oct 22)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] edd (Oct 23)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] edd (Oct 23)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Jon Green (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Jon Green (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 23)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Mr. Jeremy Hall (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Marten Terpstra (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] alex (Oct 29)
- Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Robert Craig (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Todd Graham Lewis (Oct 23)