nanog mailing list archives
Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
From: Marten Terpstra <marten () BayNetworks com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 07:19:07 -0500
Jeremy, The statements below contain so many inaccuracies that I am not even going to try to correct them... I think this kind of needless and completely inaccurate bashing is *way* out of line... -Marten "Mr. Jeremy Hall" <jhall () rex isdn net> writes * well if you're going to compare ciscos and bay networks routers, consider * that Bay networks supports Rip, OSPF, BGP, and EGP. They do *NOT* * support communities in their production software, and they have *NO* * intentions of *EVER* supporting confederations. In adition, to handle * subnets, where you want the thing to summarise a subnet into a classful * route, the Bay's solution is to drop the route entirely. They also don't * seem to understand how to aggregate routes. Their solution there is also * to drop the route. They do not appear to have the option to announce the * aggregate with the routes. They also do not appear to have the option of * aggregating since the option they provide does not work. Their SNMP * agent only works on a few platforms, and in order to adequately solve a * routing problem, you need to have a *GOOD* understanding of the MIB. The * last time I enabled syslog on the box, the router reloaded several times * within a 5 hour period, causing instability in our small network, small * meaning under 200 routes. I have fought with these things for 3 years * now and haven't seen much improvements. They have been promising NTP * support for quite some time now, since their routers don't have a * battery-powered clock. Maybe the reason they can switch packets faster * and more reliably than ciscos is because they are unable to be placed in * a situation to really test their skills. The items I have shown here * make it VERRY difficult to allow one of these things to perform with * full routing because you cannot determine what it will do. * -- * ------------------------------------------- * | Jeremy Hall Network Engineer | * | ISDN-Net, Inc Office +1-615-371-1625 | * | Nashville, TN and the southeast USA | * | jhall () isdn net Pager +1-615-702-0750 | * ------------------------------------------- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: RE: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates], (continued)
- 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)