You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]

Robert Craig rcraig at cisco.com
Wed Oct 23 17:13:59 UTC 1996


At 7:28 -0500 96/10/23, Jon Green wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Oct 96 14:23:15 +0400, alex at relcom.eu.net writes:
>>
>>>
>>>   Another  pragmatic solution is to call the editors of comm week, network
>>>   world, data communications and suggest that they might get a lot of
>>>   mileage writing a story comparing and contrasting the performance of
>>>   ISPs.  They do this for routers, bridges, FR services so they can
>>>   probably find a respectable consulting/measurement group to  collect
>>Yes, they do. It would be better (sometimes) if they did not -:)
>>
>>When I read their comparations I sometimes think to drom all my hardware
>>(BAD in terms of this magasines) and bue new one (Bay Networks as BB routers,
>>FORE ATM as ATM
>>, etc...). Through it's strange idea (for example) to compare
>>hight-end Bay router with CS7200 (middle-range router), or to
>
>You're probably thinking of the Network World review a few months back.
>As I understood it, Network World asked Cisco, Bay, and 3com to submit
>their high-end router for testing, and Cisco submitted the 7200.  This
>had me a bit confused, too.  Even with my limited Cisco knowledge, I know
>a 7200 isn't a high-end router.  Someone told me that they probably
>submitted it because the 7200 had Netflow and the others didn't or
>something.  Of course, Cisco dumped Netflow shortly after they came
>out with it, so I'm not sure what that tells you..

The 7500 series supports NetFlow.  The ISP's currently testing/using
netflow in their networks would be quite surprised to learn that cisco has
"dumped" it.  The development engineers working on further improving its
usefulness, both for switching and for gathering of statistics would also
be astonished ;-)

Robert.

>Why do you think it's bad that these reviews make you want to buy new
>hardware?  Personally, I enjoy seeing what the competition is offering.
>Maybe by having Bay's BCN blow away the competition on packet throughput,
>it will encourage Cisco to get off their asses and build a scalable router
>that doesn't need to be replaced every year.  And maybe it will encourage
>3com to.. well... build a decent router period. :)
>
>-Jon
>
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>    *      Jon Green            *   Wide-Area Networking Technician   *
>   *     jon at netINS.net         *   Iowa Network Services, Inc.        *
>  *  Finger for Geek Code/PGP   *   312 8th Street, Suite 730           *
> *  #include "std_disclaimer.h" *   Des Moines, IA 50309                 *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------








More information about the NANOG mailing list