Re: Best routing protocol for Livngston (fwd)

patrick@namesecure.com
Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:25:25 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Jake Messinger wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, MegaZone wrote:
>
> > The IRX is more directly comparable, powerwise, to the low end Ciscos. But
> > it also uses a fraction of the RAM to do the same job.
>
> THis one of Livingston's strong suits, ability to prevent kernel bloat.

Agreed, however along with not having all that "bloat" you have a fair
amount of functionality that you don't get either...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288
Systems Administrator
Namesecure
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/