I disagree, Linux is a bad choice! A Cisco 3640
router would cost about the same and I'd like to see
you get a full BGP table with Linux for the same
hardware cost. plus, linux doesn't have CEF or
any of the standard stuff that comes with IOS
(or JunOS for that matter).
The SMB market does what they will, and who
cares anyways? They have *no* market share,
they aren't Internet players, they aren't market
players, they are NOTHING. what they DON'T
NEED is another strange weird solution that I would
only put into a lab ; they need something standard,
something that works, something that will scale,
something that will perform up to their needs,
and something that most $20/hour NT admins
could configure.
I am all for (ok not for Linux, but for FreeBSD
maybe) an open source OS for research or inside
a lab where others are familiar with it. But
suggesting Linux routers for a SMB (or Enterprise,
or Service Provider) in a production, real environment
is insane. Don't get me wrong, I like Zebra, it's a good
tool. But I would never run it if my mom and pop
needed a "router" solution for their new cybercafe.
The "correct" solution for SMB is a 1600 or 1700
series router. For what you say "most" SMB's
a 1605-R (Single WAN, Dual Ethernet) and two
Catalyst 1900 switches would be more than
sufficient and would cost less in time/effort
alone for the initial setup.
Choose one person out the 165,000 CCNA
certified people, and I'm sure at least 90% of them
could configure this environment for 802.1Q, HSRP,
remote management, NAT, Firewall (Secure Integrated
Software built-in to the router), or VPN (IPSEC, L2TP,
PPTP/MPPE). That's what they are trained to do.
Show me a Linux certification or training program
that discusses T1 cards or Zebra installation/configuration.
And then give me some numbers... Yeah I thought so.
-dre
"anthony kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is all well and good for the big time players, ISPs, big corps
> yadda yadda yadda, and companies with cash to burn like so much old toilet
> paper. The Small and Midsized Business market (SMB) almost always can
> accomplish what they want with free Unix or Linux for layer 3 and
> cheap stackable switches with or without 802.1q support.
>
> So my obligatory cisco alternative:
> www.zebra.org
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 04:00:36PM -0600, William E. Gragido wrote:
> >There ServerIronXL Layer 4-7 switches are pretty cool boxes as well.
> >Foundry is also pretty nice in that their command line interface is
awfully
> >reminiscent of Cisco's. The transition from one to the other should not
be
> >too difficult.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Christopher Kolp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:41 PM
> >To: 'Brant Stevens'; 'William E. Gragido'; 'Howard C. Berkowitz';
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: alternative to Cisco routers
> >
> >
> >Foundry prices are killer and the performance is top notch.
> >
> >We're planning a roll out with 40 OC-12 POS. Guess who our preferred
> >provider is?
> >
> >None other than foundry.
> >
> >-ck
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> >Brant Stevens
> >Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:28 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]
> >
> >_________________________________
> >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]
