Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:01:03 -0500 From: exidor@superior.net (Christopher Masto) To: damian@cablenet.net (Damian Hamill) Cc: rob@xs1.simplex.nl (Rob Simons), freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: term server Message-ID: <19970327150103.ME26945@@> In-Reply-To: <333A6BDD.41C67EA6@cablenet.net>; from Damian Hamill on Mar 27, 1997 12:45:17 %2B0000 References: <199703270841.JAA01938@xs1.simplex.nl> <333A6BDD.41C67EA6@cablenet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Damian Hamill writes: > I got an "Ascend Max v Livingston PM3" sheet from a distributor recently > (written by Ascend). One of the things mentioned as a major weakness of > the PM3 was the following; > > Limited routed protocol support. PM3 does not support RIP2, which > allows ISPs to support VLSM. Without support for VLSM ISPs cannot > segment or concatenate Class C address subscribers. Also, no support > for OSPF (in beta) or BGP is provided. These features are required, > especially by ISPs. > > But until you get your hands on both of them and compare the two > products in the field who can tell. Sounds like marketing hype to me.. particularly claiming that ISPs require BGP in a term server. OSPF comes in handy sometimes if you're trying to be route-environmentally conscious.. which would explain why it's supported and has a chapter in the manual. Just a satisfied PortMaster user.. who made the decision not to go with Ascend when they calling Livingston a "fly-by-night company" at Internet World. -- Christopher Masto . . . . chris@masto.com . . . . . Masto Consulting: info@masto.com On the Future, Where it is: It's a question of wheather we're going to go forward into the future, or past to the back. - Vice President Dan Quale.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970327150103.ME26945>