nanog mailing list archives

Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?


From: "Gary Zimmerman" <garyz () savvis com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 07:14:56 -0500

Joe, I agree with you.  We have several of the GRF2s (16 slot) and a few
GRF400s, (1 - 7513) almost cisco fee.  I have been working with the GRF
since last August and we like it alot.  It does take a while to get the
gated stuff down, but once you get past that then these routers will handle
some traffic and some large BGP tables.  We run a ATM network and believe
that IP switching is the right way to go and the GRFs are the first step in
that direction.  Move the processing to the board instead of a central
processor also makes alot of sense.

Gary Zimmerman
V.P. Network Engineering
SAVVIS Communication Inc.
http://www.savvis.com

----------
From: Joe  Shaw <jshaw () insync net>
To: Lane Patterson <lane () isi net>
Cc: Christofer Hoff <hoff () nodewarrior net>; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
Date: Sunday, August 24, 1997 1:32 PM


The new name for the BFR (Big F**king Router) is the GSR.  As much as I
like cisco and it's configurablility, The Ascend GRF is still a very
powerful box for a lot less than the biggest cisco out there that can't
perform close to it.  The only problem I have with the GRF is that if
you're a newbie to GateD, then it will take you a bit of tinkering to get
a working setup.  This was my case since I'm much more accustomed to the
Cisco way of doing things.  However, the GRF is a nice change.

Joe Shaw - jshaw () insync net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee


On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote:

Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail.  He's our collective test case :-)

Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too?

-Lane

On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Christofer Hoff wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We are in the development phase of engineering the deployment of 
approximately
60 POPs throughout the US.  Our 'standard' configuration is normally 
based upon
cisco equipment and more often than not consists of a 7513 connected 
to a Catalyst
5000/5500 via FDDI with the various internal LAN segments switched
from there via FD 100BaseTX.

We've begun to explore the viability of deploying the GRF for several

reasons,
not the least of which is cost and performance.  Given (and taken 
with a grain
of salt) the apparent performance differential between the cisco 7513

and the 
Ascend GRF (the GRF outperforms the 7513 substantially in our tests,)

my
concerns are more operations-related. 

The GRF DOES support the 'full' implementation (including extensions)

of 
BGP4 and the other 'vanilla' TCP services that you'd come to expect 
from
a router (er, layer 3 switch?) of this caliber.  Since it's NOT a 
cisco, 
we'd have to deviate and not utilize EIGRP as our IGP of choice, and 
deploy
OSPF which poses its own set of issues.

SO, the bottom line...has anyone else deployed multiple GRF400's with

success.  
Ascend will tell you that UUNET has deployed (or is going to) a 
hundred or so.
I want to talk to people USING the technology, not thinking about it.

Your comments and opinions are welcomed.

TIA,

Christofer Hoff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBM/3KcnRoVZYHVpX1EQKKwgCgsnu30mTvCXZRyH68TOWeq3z0uZkAnj0F
Kmgl0te7Wq6AzsQ1/0GjMV5N
=d5NC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

            ,,,
           (o-o)
------.oOO--(_)--OOo.---------------------------------
Christofer L. Hoff            \  No true genius is
Chief Nerd,                    \  possible without a
NodeWarrior Networks, Inc       \  little intelligent
                                 \  madness!
hoff () nodewarrior net              \
http://www.nodewarrior.net         \ -Peter Uberoth
"Nuthin' but Net!"                  \
------------------------------------------------------
       310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax







Current thread: