> Once upon a time patrick@namesecure.com shaped the electrons to say...
> >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
>
> The PM-3 has more relative horespower than some of the low end Cisco routers
> that claim to do BGP. And is uses a fraction of the RAM. The PM-3 *is*
> a full featured router.
And a PM-3 is more expensive than say a 2501, no?
So, MZ, Andy, John, Carl, whomever, what is the combination of users
on-line on the PM-3 at a given time, ethernet traffic, multiple full or
partial BGP views, OSPF routes, traffic over the WAN link, and filters of
varying complexity can you have before you experience peformance
degradation?
The inability for me to answer this question is why I could not in good
conscience recommend using the PM-3 for mission-critical routing any more
than I would recommend the IRX for mission-critical gateway routing for
the same reason.
IMHO, being "full-featured" includes the ability to see the effect(s) of
any given "feature" on the router.
> 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.
See above question(sans the question about users online.)
It is definitely comparable in power. What it is not comparable in is
functionality or reporting. Some of that is good, some of it is bad...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288
Systems Administrator
Namesecure
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/