I like the Linux OS, but in my experience there are some problems with using
it as a router for ISP connectivity. The most common situation is that I
seen a bug with the PPP stack which causes the line to go into an up/down
state. The problem is with LCP negotiation, for whatever reason, the Linux
box sending its LCP negotiation and the router at the ISPs end is sending
its LCP negotiation but neither one is reaching the open state. When you
factor in the hardware costs of dedicating a computer for the task, and the
hardware to link it to a T1 you are not far from the cost of a Cisco router.
I would personally choose the Cisco router for this task.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: anthony kim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 7:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: alternative to Cisco routers
You seem tense.
If you search the web, you will find many companies already running
linux or freebsd and have no problems with full BGP views. It really
isn't too difficult maintaining T1s either. CCN? plus linux isn't
mutually exclusive so I don't see the hubbub.
The "correct" solution on a cisco list is what cisco says is the
correct solution. That I'll grant you. We are merely extending our
horizons and discussing possibilities.
CCN?s on this list (myself included) need not feel threatened.
And finally, I disagree with regard to cost. You can't get a 3640
with 128MB DRAM for under a thousand. Ok, *maybe* you can snag a used
one cheap, perhaps cut a deal somewheres, but I did not intend this
to be a MY OS is better than IOS war. Let's not go there.
--- dre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_________________________________
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]
