You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
David Whipple
dwhipple at microsoft.com
Tue Oct 29 16:57:08 UTC 1996
Jeremy,
I would have to strongly disagree with you on many of your points below:
First I have had experience running a 200 router network, made fully of
Bay BCN/BNX's. This network was running OSPF, with several areas, and
route aggregation. When the network was first implemented, we had some
problems, however Bay was quick to resolve them.
In addition, I have seen several case of Bay routers BGP peering, with
Cisco's. This is a fairly straight forward thing to do (now), and Bay
could
probably give you a white paper describing any potential differences
they
have with Cisco.
As for not supporting SNMP, that is simply crap, I have written SNMP
code to pull many thousand entry route tables, and while this did have
performance implications, most routers have performance implications
when doing lot's of SNMP. I would throw away site manager (Bay's
SNMP Manager), and learn the MIB if I had a large Bay network.
Yes I would agree you have to have a good understanding of the MIB.
But, I would add that with a Cisco you have to have a good understanding
of IOS.
Generally, I think Cisco has a stronger software platform, Bay a
stronger
hardware platform, but both are viable options, depending on your
environment. Could you be running some 5.xx series code?
Haven't we beat this Bay/Cisco thing to death yet...
Thanks.
David Whipple.
>----------
>From: Mr. Jeremy Hall[SMTP:jhall at rex.isdn.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 3:39 AM
>To: alex at relcom.eu.net
>Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Re: You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
>
>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 at isdn.net Pager +1-615-702-0750 |
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list