> On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 patrick@namesecure.com wrote:
>
> > Learn BGP and buy a Cisco to do BGP.
>
> Thats not very nice to say on a portmaster list.
He asked for the best way to do it. IMHO that is the best way.
>
> > Second best would be to learn BGP and use an IRX or PM3(although I don't
> > like the idea of using Term servers doing resource intensive routing.) You
>
> An IRX is NOT a term server. I agree that using a term server to do a
I never said it was. Notice I put the parens *after* the PM3. The PM3 is a
Term server.
> (major) router's job is NOT a good idea. But why not an IRX?
Why not an IRX? Tell me, when are you pushing the router too hard?
How many full or partial views can you take, combined with how many
filters/what type can you have, combines with how much data can you be
pushing, before you experience performance degredation?
And what is your upgrade path if you even knew the answer, not that you
ever could hope to because Livingston cannot provide meaningful processor
resource utilization statistics? Cisco, Bay, etc., etc.
It has been explained to me more than once that because of the way in
which ComOS has been written, processor statistics would be meaningless. I
understand, and accept this. However, I consider this a serious design
flaw when dealing with resource-intesive routing protocols. Given this
basic inability, I wouldn't recommend running a Livingston product as a
gateway router, especially when running BGP and/or OSPF.
And before folks jump in and say "Well, it works great on *my* network," I
would ask the same question again: How will you know when you are pushing
it too hard?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288
Systems Administrator
Namesecure
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/