Switching generally refers to forwarding done by ASICS rather than software
so yes, it's the performance
"Peter Van Oene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
