Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:25:15 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <sysop@mixcom.com> To: Damian Hamill <damian@cablenet.net> Cc: Rob Simons <rob@xs1.simplex.nl>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: term server Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970327152514.00c109f4@mixcom.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:45 PM 3/27/97 +0000, Damian Hamill wrote: >Rob Simons wrote: >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; Just one? Seem to get more and more, last batch - 5 copies, at least by mail. >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; This is twisted and old. VLSM and OSPF are real, BGP is in beta. Never used Ascend, but hear that LV's OSPF works and Ascend's is flakey. Of course some don't like the way they did do some things, but it works beautifully for most. My view is that some know quite a lot about OSPF and want 100% control over it. The segmenting or concatenate being a problem, is not true even with just RIP and no OSPF or VLSM. What is RADIUS framed-route for $1? >But until you get your hands on both of them and compare the two >products in the field who can tell. True, but others here can do this. Typical bashing lit. ------------------------------------------- Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator jeff@mixcom.net MIX Communications Serving the Internet since 1990
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970327152514.00c109f4>