You are right [was Re: Ungodly packet loss rates]
Jeremy Hinton
jgh at visi.net
Tue Oct 29 22:12:02 UTC 1996
I hate to whip a dead horse, but letting stuff like this pass as accepted
is probably not the best thing...
> <jhall at rex.isdn.net> writes:
>
> 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,
Actually, its in 11.0, which is now production software, and i *think*
it might even have made it into 10.x. No confederations AFAIK.
> 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.
I you mean the trait of using classfull mask defaults for route
aggregation, yes that is/was an issue. I think 11.0 has a switch to turn
that off now though (if not production, one of the workspaces). Its not a
major issue really, as this can easily be accomplished with policy
filters, which is how we do it. I would say this is the preferable way to
do it, as it isolates bogus IGP information and makes troubleshooting much
easier.
> 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.
This is false. I used to believe this too, and am quite familiar with the
MIBs as a result. But then there is TI scripting, and it made life much
simpler (at least, it made wfIpBaseRtEntry.7.* much easier to type). The
ip commands in 10.x also make this easier. Of course, this is all if
you're a die-hard CLI fan.
> 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.
Can't speak for this, as i do local logging, not syslog. However, we
currently have several Bay boxes with full internet routes and multiple
peers, and the only problem i've had recently is from a Cisco peer feeding
me bad announcements.
> 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
NTP client is in 11.0, though not server.
> 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.
We have actually seen quite a bit of improvement (and i'll be the first to
admit, there was a lot of room for it). However, i'm not sure i agree with
your statement about 'full routing'. We are running BGP, RIP, and OSPF all
here, in various nodes, without serious problems. True, you do need to
have a good understanding of accept/announce policies, but i find the
performance/capability more than acceptable.
- jeremy
// Jeremy Hinton Visionary Systems, Inc.
// jgh at visi.net http://www.visi.net
// Network Engineer Newport News, VA
// A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men
More information about the NANOG
mailing list