How is current layer 3 switching any different from routing? I believe your concern
would lie with forwarding performance?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 2/14/2001 at 10:43 PM Kenneth wrote:
>You obviously can't do layer 3 SWITCHING with a box loaded with Linux. It
>might do routing but definitely can't be used in an enterprise nor an ISP.
>
>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]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
