Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
jshaw at insync.net
Sun Aug 24 18:32:47 UTC 1997
The new name for the BFR (Big F**king Router) is the GSR. As much as I
like cisco and it's configurablility, The Ascend GRF is still a very
powerful box for a lot less than the biggest cisco out there that can't
perform close to it. The only problem I have with the GRF is that if
you're a newbie to GateD, then it will take you a bit of tinkering to get
a working setup. This was my case since I'm much more accustomed to the
Cisco way of doing things. However, the GRF is a nice change.
Joe Shaw - jshaw at insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Lane Patterson wrote:
> Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail. He's our collective test case :-)
> Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too?
> On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Christofer Hoff wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > We are in the development phase of engineering the deployment of
> > approximately
> > 60 POPs throughout the US. Our 'standard' configuration is normally
> > based upon
> > cisco equipment and more often than not consists of a 7513 connected
> > to a Catalyst
> > 5000/5500 via FDDI with the various internal LAN segments switched
> > from there via FD 100BaseTX.
> > We've begun to explore the viability of deploying the GRF for several
> > reasons,
> > not the least of which is cost and performance. Given (and taken
> > with a grain
> > of salt) the apparent performance differential between the cisco 7513
> > and the
> > Ascend GRF (the GRF outperforms the 7513 substantially in our tests,)
> > my
> > concerns are more operations-related.
> > The GRF DOES support the 'full' implementation (including extensions)
> > of
> > BGP4 and the other 'vanilla' TCP services that you'd come to expect
> > from
> > a router (er, layer 3 switch?) of this caliber. Since it's NOT a
> > cisco,
> > we'd have to deviate and not utilize EIGRP as our IGP of choice, and
> > deploy
> > OSPF which poses its own set of issues.
> > SO, the bottom line...has anyone else deployed multiple GRF400's with
> > success.
> > Ascend will tell you that UUNET has deployed (or is going to) a
> > hundred or so.
> > I want to talk to people USING the technology, not thinking about it.
> > Your comments and opinions are welcomed.
> > TIA,
> > Christofer Hoff
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
> > Charset: noconv
> > iQA/AwUBM/3KcnRoVZYHVpX1EQKKwgCgsnu30mTvCXZRyH68TOWeq3z0uZkAnj0F
> > Kmgl0te7Wq6AzsQ1/0GjMV5N
> > =d5NC
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > ,,,
> > (o-o)
> > ------.oOO--(_)--OOo.---------------------------------
> > Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is
> > Chief Nerd, \ possible without a
> > NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent
> > \ madness!
> > hoff at nodewarrior.net \
> > http://www.nodewarrior.net \ -Peter Uberoth
> > "Nuthin' but Net!" \
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > 310.568.1700 vox - 310.568.4766 fax
More information about the NANOG