Network Routing without Cisco or Juniper?
Jim Segrave
jes at nl.demon.net
Wed Sep 4 09:35:20 UTC 2002
On Wed 04 Sep 2002 (09:49 +0200), Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:39:25AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
> [snip]
> > Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
> > (at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
> > the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or just
> > interest?
>
> One Dutch ISP that shall remain unnamed (and is not one I work for or
> have worked for) deployed Extreme on AMS-IX, with Extreme's BGP
> implementation.
>
> It broke horribly. The Extreme BGP implementation, instead of sending
> their peers just their own prefixes, would send each peer *all*
> prefixes and then withdraw all but their own networks. However, doing
> this with tens of peers at the same time was too much for the Extreme
> itself, which died.
And another NL ISP - Demon - has used:
PC-based routers running gated. At low traffic volumes, they worked
very well.
A supplier I don't think I'm at liberty to name. When they were good,
they were very, very good. But when they were bad they were horrid.
Another supplier I don't wish to name. Mostly worked, but crashed if
you made even the slighest configuration change.
We're now on Junipers and very happy.
--
Jim Segrave jes at nl.demon.net
More information about the NANOG
mailing list