On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 patrick@namesecure.com wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, MegaZone wrote:
>
> > 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
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>