Re: (PM) PM4?

John Storms (jstorms@livingston.com)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:23:10 -0800

At 10:36 AM 2/26/99 -0500, Jeff Haas wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 07:55:00AM -0500, Matthew S. Crocker wrote:
>> The PM-4 is an overpriced oversized PM-3. They don't have any cards which
>> come close to its maximum capabilities (yet).
>
>But as certain people have said, the PM3 is pretty close to the end of
>its effective life for additional features. Multiple IP pools,
>which were requested ages ago, will only be added to the PM4. VoIP,
>ATM, DS3, etc. will only exist on the PM4. Lucent (not Livingston)
>at least insisted that RIPv2 get developed.
>
>I am sorely disappointed with several things about the PM4:
>o You run one copy of comos for each blade. This makes IP pools messy.
> I haven't played with more than a single card yet so I don't know how
> routing aggregation on the chassis works - or if it does.

On the PM4 ComOS 4.1 Named IPPools are a global setting and are not messy
at all. Route aggregation is working perfectly in our labs.

>o The multiple copies mean you have to manage things on a per card basis.
> While Livingston's java tools are getting better, managing the PM4 is
> still messy. (I like CLI)

Not true, there is one ComOS image for each "type" of card. So if you have
9 QuadT1's in the box you only need to have one quadt1 image. These images
are pulled from the /shared directory in the file system.

>o Port density isn't quite there yet.
>o Failure is limited to a blade. While this is nice, it also means that
> you have to nail an entire blade to fix a problem. Other
> high-density NAS products separate the interface (DS1/DS3, etc.)
> cards from the modem cards so that you could disable the modems
> and swap them separately. This issue is only going to get nastier
> as port density goes up.
> (I will admit that in the face of DSL and ISDN that this is a specious
> argument.)
>
>Certain of the issues, such as weird RADIUS output is being addressed.
>
>One of the niceties that you get is that you don't do multi-chassis
>stuff (MCPPP, NFAS) etc via ethernet broadcast. But I think you
>are limited to your PM4 chasis - you can't span chassis anyway.
>This is mostly an issue for MCPPP and not NFAS.
>
>> At this point I think the
>> modems work about as well as a PM-3 (Not sure if that is good or bad)
>
>Excluding beta stuff that people want, the modem code is the number
>one issue that affects current owners of PM products. There's also
>a weird bug (Pm3, don't know about PM4) dealing with unnumbered PPP
>dialout and routing, which is supposedly being fixed.
>
>> Modems are NOT the future of an ISP's business.
>
>I believe they will be for about 3 years more. Given the facilities
>access issues that have been coming up, it is likely that the
>inability to access DSL or cable will push most of the smaller ISPs
>out of business. The great digital shakeup was just a prelude.
>
>> - -Matt
>
>--
>Jeffrey Haas -+- jmh@msen.com -+- http://www.msen.com/~jmh
>/\/\sen, Inc. "Michigan's Best Run Internet Service Provider."
>-
>To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
>'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
>Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>
>

---
jstorms@lucent.com (Galactic Hero)
Diplomacy:  The art of saying good doggie
while seaching for a big rock.
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>