>Well, to be honest, Foundry plays only in the peripheral internet market
>space with the BigIron Product line, however they do nothing at the core.
>So, to include them in the same grouping as the others would be misleading.
Just for information, Foundry and Extreme are heavily represented at
European intercarrier exchange points, although I would agree that's
not the core. Exchange points, however, interconnect routers, but
the exchange fabric is rarely involved in heavy-duty BGP; it's mostly
a layer 2 application. If the provider routers don't do the BGP,
then they very well may be peered to a pure route server (i.e., that
does no forwarding) running on a UNIX box. Interestingly, exchange
point UNIX boxes are sometimes deliberately different hardware and
different UNIX flavors, to protect against a common implementation
bug.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brant Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:28 PM
>To: William E. Gragido; 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers
>
>
>Not to mention Foundry...
>
>Brant I. Stevens
>Internetwork Solutions Engineer
>Thrupoint, Inc.
>545 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor
>New York, NY. 10017
>646-562-6540
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>William E. Gragido
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:47 PM
>To: 'Howard C. Berkowitz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers
>
>
>Riding on the coat tails of Howard's comments, there are also other players
>out there like Lucent(home of the Nexibit N64000 Terabit Switch Router and
>the Ascend product lines), Avici, Charlette's Web, Nortel etc., that offer
>carrier grade solutions.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Howard C. Berkowitz
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:20 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: alternative to Cisco routers
>
>
>A few comments, in which I think I am being reasonably objective.
>
>On this list, people periodically speak of the joys of Cisco, because
>it offers end-to-end solutions. That is a very enterprise-oriented
>view.
>
>Much more than in the enterprise space, carriers/ISPs tend to _want_
>multivendor solutions. There are several reasons. They are
>protected, to some extent, from bugs in the hardware or software of a
>specific implementation. Next, if they have several qualified
>vendors, they can get some protection against delivery backlogs from
>one of them. The larger provider also can play competitive discount
>and service games with the vendors.
>
>In this market, Juniper has the advantage of having built a product
>as carrier-oriented from the ground up. There's a lot of bloat in IOS
>due to the perception or need for legacy, usually
>enterprise-oriented, features. Independent reviewers, such as the
>Tolly group, have indicated that Junipers may have as good or better
>throughput than equivalent Cisco products.
>
>No one vendor owns the entire carrier router space. Cisco's
>advertising that ninety-some percent of the traffic in the internet
>goes over the equipment of one company doesn't necessarily mean the
>core bandwidth, but that the traffic at some point hits an enterprise
>or carrier Cisco device. In any case, I prefer the variant of this
>slogan I saw in someone's .sig (hoping I don't hit a filter)
>"ninety-some percent of the p*rn*graphy in the Internet goes through
>the equipment of one company." Said comment could be equally true of
>Cisco's routers or Nortel's optics.
>
>Juniper and Cisco both make fine products.
>
>
>>John,
>>
>>I went to a BGP study session and the instructor said that major ISP use
>>Juniper router to run BGP. Hope this help. PEACE
>>
>>
>> Raheem
>>
>>
>>>From: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Reply-To: John Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Subject: alternative to Cisco routers
> >>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:09:59 -0500
>>>
>>>Anyone who have experience with Juniper routers would like to comment on
>>>its performance (M20 and 40
>>>series) in comparison to Cisco GSR 12000s. My company is in the process
>>>of evaluating Juniper products
>>>because we are not very happy with Cisco performance. Our router
>>>crashes almost every week which is
>>>unacceptable and Cisco didn't provide much help other than giving us
>> >buggy IOS code.
>>>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
