Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?

Mon Aug 25 22:38:13 UTC 1997

grf == pipe dream.

Alex

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Chris MacFarlane wrote:

> Well they are out as we (ACC) have deployed them and the have worked well so far.  We have had a couple of bug to date and Ascend has addressed them quickly.  As for them being new they have been around for two years but I do agree that they need some polishing on the router management side.
> 
> Rgds
> 
> cjm
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Brian Horvitz [SMTP:horvitz at mediaone.net]
> Sent:	Saturday, August 23, 1997 1:06 AM
> To:	Lane Patterson; Christofer Hoff
> Cc:	nanog at merit.edu
> Subject:	Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
> 
>  Why, you know where to get one?  And even if they were out, I'm not sure
> I'm want to deploy anything in a 60 node network pushing that much data
> which was so new.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> >Talk to Nathan Stratton at Netrail.  He's our collective test case :-)
> >
> >Aren't you looking at Cisco's BFR too?
> >
> >-Lane
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 