Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP Switch?
hoff at nodewarrior.net
Tue Aug 26 06:25:05 UTC 1997
At 09:50 PM 8/25/97 -0700, joseph j. kim wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, Justin W. Newton wrote:
>> At 08:35 PM 8/25/97 +0000, Nathan Stratton wrote:
>> >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?
>> >We have been trying to get a BFR (now GSR) in, but I think Cisco does not
>> >want a GSR next to a GRF or something. :-)
Since I began the thread with my request for REAL-LIFE evaluations of those
who had installed the GRF versus the (AVAILABLE) Cisco 7500-series routers,
I've received over 100 replies -- some copied to the list, others not.
The replies present an interesting dichotomy -- some replies are obviously
generated from pure brand-bigotism, others actually allowed logic and
sensible TECHNICAL evaluations speak for them.
What I asked for were ENGINEERING data -- not marketing diatribe. Some
of the people on this list need to seriously re-evaluate their job
descriptions and realize that evangelism is one thing -- serious
technical evaluations are quite another.
>i don't understand all of the mail comparing the two, there is really no
>comparison. the GSR blows the GRF away. there is an order of magnitude
>difference in the aggregate b/w supported between the two correct? 4Mb/s
>vs 40Mb/s. Also, not that I know anything about the GRF but I think Cisco
>claims that 7500 real-world performance is much better than the GRF400.
So, I am to assume that you have (or have had) both a GRF and a GSR in your
lab for evaluation? Aggregate bandwidth means squat in the real world if
you can't forward/switch packets efficiently in a loaded network. When
my GRF gets here, we'll be switching out one of our 7500's (for eval., of
course!) and putting it to real-world tests (full BGP, HSSI and Fast
What worries me is that your statements above seemto blindly contradict one
First you state "... the GSR blows the GRF away" and then you go on to say
"Also, not that I know anything about the GRF," and "...maybe someone can
post some performance numbers."
Anyone (including myself) can read a piece of marketing fluff and make
an uninformed decision, but I think that it makes more sense for
everyone involved if we try to provide one another with information that
goes beyond what one may find in a Tolly Group report. In the REAL world,
there's quite a difference between a device that "works" and one that
Cisco and Ascend both make great products. Each company has its strengths
and weaknesses. What we need to do is /dev/null the "Chevy vs. Ford"
sandbox drivel and provide one another with useful information.
I don't mean this in a harsh manner -- I just want to point out that there
was not much meat with your potatoes.
Christofer L. Hoff \ No true genius is
Chief Nerd, \ possible without a
NodeWarrior Networks, Inc \ little intelligent
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