RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?

["Derek Samford" <dsamford () fastduck net>]

I can't say personally I like the Foundry's. When I was testing (granted
this was 2 years ago.) I saw some traffic when they were under near
wireline load and holding full tables. I'm sure their vastly improved,
just as Riverstone has. But Foundry's CLI just doesn't cut it for me.
Again, the Foundry bias is fairly old, and I have a couple in the lab
waiting for me to test new code. But I can't go back to their CLI after
using RS for so long.

Derek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf
Of
> Daniel Golding
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:23 PM
> To: jeffrey.arnold; Nanog
> Subject: RE: Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?
>
>
>
> I'm a big fan of both Foundry and Riverstone, as BGP speaking routers.
> I've
> had great luck with both. Foundry has some annoying bugs at first, but
> these
> seem to have been resolved. I recommend both.
>
> - Daniel Golding
>
> > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
> >
> > ::  Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk
BGP
> > ::  (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
> > ::  the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or
just
> > ::  interest?
> > ::
> >
> > Foundry makes a very good, very stable bgp speaker. I've had them in
my
> > network alongside cisco's and juniper's for a couple of years now,
and
> > i've never run into any bgp implementation problems that i would
> consider
> > major. A few annoying bugs here and there, but nothing significantly
> worse
> > than C or J.
> >
> > Beyond the fact that not too many people are familiar with foundry's
> > gear, I tend to think that foundry has lost face in the service
provider
> > world for non-bgp related issues. ACL problems and CAM size issues
have
> > come up in really large installs (multi GBps, hundreds of thousands
of
> > flows, etc). Foundry is also behind cisco and juniper in features -
GRE
> > and netflow/sflow come to mind.
> >
> > The ACL and CAM issues are supposedly fixed in foundry's jetcore
chipset
> > boxes, but i haven't seen any of those yet. Sflow is now an option,
and
> > from what i hear, their implementation is very very good. Overall,
> foundry
> > still makes a good box - when you figure in the cost factor, it
becomes
> a
> > great box.
> >
> > I've also played with extreme, but the last i checked, they were
*way*
> > behind foundry/cisco/juniper in terms of their bgp stability and
feature
> > set. Overall my experience with extreme has not been a pleasant one.
I
> > know some people who love them however, so who knows. They seem to
make
> > good/fast layer 2 gear, but i've had some scary results with their
layer
> 3
> > stuff.
> >
> > -jba
> >
> > __
> >  [jba () analogue net] :: analogue.networks.nyc :: http://analogue.net