nanog mailing list archives
Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
From: alex () relcom eu net
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 96 19:23:28 +0400
I am not shure this is for nanog, through:
>No one answer. But - I get information _router XXX drops some packets if they >try to cause it work with 10 FDDI links, etc..., etc... very interesting >and absolutely useless...
...
it is definitely something to consider. Remember, a lot of the current scaling problems the Internet is having is because people use routers that look pretty and have nice software features, but have dismal hardware. "It can hold 40,000 routes, but if we get up to 50,000 I'll have to buy a new router because this one can't hold any more memory."
You are right. But unfortunately this means the Cisco is the worst selection because their hardware is badly scaled (let's compare stackable Bay router, new Ascend's router and any - any - Cisco), they cause customer to bue new CS4700 instead of CS4500 to make simple memory upgrade (isn't it amazing? any Pentium PC can use more than 64Mb RAM and hard, solid Cisco 4500 /with MIPS processor etc.../ can't? Is it good hardware) from 32 to 64Mb RAM. And there is a lot of such examples when Cisco's solution looks badky via bad hardware. May be it's Cisco's problem; may be it's the play of Cisco's sales, bay be it's reality - I do not know. But they cause small and middla-range ISP to choose nonscalable solutions. And then total Internet society loss total quality via this choose. This moves me to the old idea - it's good news for ISP if any hardware vendor makes new, good and competive router. Back to the _big brother_ subject - most ISP likes CISCO, and most hate it at the same time.
In short, when spending the money for a high-end router, NO information is useless.
For old, solid network administrators - yes. But I see every day how some brain-less manager in some company choose XXX-vendor's router because he have read excellent article about this router - and then we (as ISP) spend our time trieing this router to work (yes, we get our reward - but we are ISP, not _bad hardware consultants_). --- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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)
- RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates] Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)