>Also worth looking at is the hardware component: what will run on >the hardware you've already got (if anything)? IF you already >have most or all of the hardware pieces to implement Cisco's >version, then Cisco's probably makes sense. IF you already have >the requisite Nortel gear (Passports?), you're probably only >looking at upgrading to a new PCR (software version).
One of the benefits of the solution I'm considering is that we don't have to change much at all on our CPE. Our branch sites would require static routing only, while two or three other sites would need to run OSPF. The OSPF-speaking routers form adjacencies with the Qwest PRN and will dynamically learn the routes to our spoke locations. One operational downside is that in order to add a new subnet at a spoke site I have to call Qwest and have them manually add a static route in the PRN, which will then be redistributed into OSPF. It seems like a pretty decent solution and it solves all sorts of problems we're having with the frame relay network. A solution like this would allow us to finally move to IP telephony and not run into serious bandwidth constraints and other issues caused by the use of FRTS. It would also allow us to expand the number of sites involved in video conferencing. All of this could occur without experiencing the shaping issues created when you have 3+ PVCs at most locations. For reference, Qwest is using the BSN-5000 (Shasta) for this service. There are still a few remote sites where we'd connect to some Juniper router but Shasta's do the bulk of the work. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73106&t=73048 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
