nanog mailing list archives
Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
From: alex () pilosoft com
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:34:23 -0500 (EST)
One problem is that with Cisco, unless you are buying the largest platforms available, each Cisco series uses different underlying hardware with different performance characteristics and images. You need to keep track of lots of separate images and versions when doing upgrades. With a network boot OS for each POP, you can do version control much much more easily.
In words of Randy, "I encourage all my competitors to network boot their routers". Seriously - that's insane, multiple single points of failure. -alex
Current thread:
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Michel Py (Jan 14)
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) alex (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Alexei Roudnev (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Deepak Jain (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) haesu (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) alex (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Deepak Jain (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) alex (Jan 14)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Deepak Jain (Jan 15)
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) alex (Jan 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Michel Py (Jan 14)
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Michel Py (Jan 14)
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Scott McGrath (Jan 15)
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Michel Py (Jan 15)
- RE: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) David Barak (Jan 15)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Neil J. McRae (Jan 15)
- Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck) Neil J. McRae (Jan 15)