> On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Jason Hatch wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Jake Messinger wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Jason Hatch wrote:
> > >
> Jason - I'm not trying to be rude or to piss you off, but rather to make a
> recommendation: Go immediately to OSPF. Upgrade your RAM today - the
> price is right; don't put it off. What you have (described above) is a
> duct tape and hot glue solution; really - its a credit to your ingenuity
> that it works at all!
Yes, it is a duct tape and hot glue situation. I did finally upgrade my
PMs to 4 megs of ram in anticipation of OSPF, BTW.
>
> When you bite the OSPF bullet (as I did) it'll take you an evening to get
> it setup and _everything_ will be so much simpler to manage! I know OSPF
> can be intimidating (I was intimidated), but its really not that difficult
> to setup if you read the "this is how you do it" stuff and ignore all the
> routing theory (for now).
OSPF scares the living daylights out of me :-) In this cometitive market,
I have to do more investigation and learn a little of how it works before
I pull the switch. I have to answer a lot of questions before I do it. I
read the how_to on livingston's site, but I'm unsure about whether or not
I should disable RIP all the way around, or go through configuring route
injection.
>
> Also Solaris 2.6 finally added support for VLSM - you might be very
> surprised to learn that "/usr/sbin/in.routed -q" will work just fine if
> you enable OSPF on your PortMasters and Cisco routers. No more trying to
> get gated to run reliably on your Solaris 2.5.1 boxes.
I'm actually not using gated. I point everything to my default route,
which is probably overloading my poor IRX who has to process packets on
its ether, then reincapsulate them and push them back out, when, say, my
nameserver on A.10 has a packet to send on B.12. It's probably doing
wonders for my switch, too :-) Since my nameserver is a SunOS box, I'll
probably have to add static routes when I subnet my PM2es, leaving just my
static IP people to bounce off the router.
>
> Also I agree with your statement "BGP on Cisco". Livingston/Lucent is
> really at the network edge - they do this very well. They don't try to
> compete at the backbone routing level - that's a game only the big boys
> can play. And if you look at a Cisco 3640 (or 3620) you'll see that this
> is at the "sweet spot" in Ciscos price/performance curve right now. The
> 3640 especially - it may well be the last router you'll buy! Well....
> maybe not!!
I don't know a heck of a lot about ciscos (we use an IRX as our main
router here), but I'm learning that having an OS on the router that does
what you tell it to do does wonders for your ego. I mean, after running a
leased line to a customer on 3.2R, telling it that it's a /27, and
fighting with it (netmask table, etc) to get it to route only the subnet
to the customer, not the whole /24, to find out that it completely breaks
and bounces it to your upstream router when you try to use the netmask
table, then breaking down and deciding to let it route the whole /24 (no
one was using the other subnets) and wondering if you should sell bagles
for a living, only to find out, then when you upgrade to 3.7.2, it
automajically does what you told it to do in the first place, because you
_did_ actually configure it right in the first place...
-Jason
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.