Re: (ASCEND) BGP 4 ?

To: Joe Shaw <jshaw@insync.net>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) BGP 4 ?
From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 07:25:38 -0800
Cc: Adam Neat <adamneat@ipax.com.au>, ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971125091745.20105D-100000@vellocet.insync.net>
References: <199711242324.KAA11046@kryten.ipax.com.au>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 09:21 AM 11/25/97 -0600, Joe  Shaw wrote:
>I think you'll find that the Max40xx has a hard enough time doing OSPF
>sometimes.  BGP4 is best left to routers with much more processor power
>and ram than the Max40xx series has, which is probably the reason Ascend
>has never implemented it.  The Ascend GRF 400 or 1600 can do BGP4, but the
>interface is still too clumsy for a production environment (and I'm a UNIX
>admin).

What do you find clumsy about it? The GRF is used in many production shops
today. Have you tried the State Monitor?

Matt Holdrege		http://www.ascend.com	matt@ascend.com
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

(ASCEND) BGP 4 ?

From: "Adam Neat" <adamneat@ipax.com.au>

Re: (ASCEND) BGP 4 ?

From: Joe Shaw <jshaw@insync.net>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) BGP 4 ?
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) BGP 4 ?
Next by thread: (ASCEND) What the big ones do
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread