From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Mar 27 12:48:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA20763 for isp-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (root@ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA20758 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:48:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (bradley@localhost) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA18846 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:48:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:48:20 -0500 (EST) From: Bradley Dunn X-Sender: bradley@ns2.harborcom.net To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: term server In-Reply-To: <333A6BDD.41C67EA6@cablenet.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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; > > quote; > > 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. > > endquote; The OSPF code from Livingston is released, so the stuff about being unable to do VLSM is no longer true. As for BGP, it would be grossly incompetent engineering to use it on your access servers anyway. I think it is reason enough to go with Livingston because of Ascend's overzealous marketing department. Maybe if they stopped spamming me, calling me every two weeks, and sending me junk mail, I would look at their products. (But probably not :) Seriously, the PM3 looks very nice and we will probably be purchasing a few of them. Can't beat its price/port either. pbd