From owner-freebsd-isp  Thu Jun 12 07:35:37 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA29896
          for isp-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA29891
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA06044; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970612103403.00af02b0@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:34:15 -0400
To: jamie@dilbert.iagnet.net
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: Router
Cc: isp@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 07:56 PM 6/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> >>         IMHO, Cisco /is/ the standard, and the only reason to go with
>> >>         anything else would have to be the price.  But, as always, it
>> >>         depends heavily on what your requirements are.
>> 
>> It depends what your doing. Ciscos dont to PPP well (although so
>> dont lots of other products), and also on your technical prowess. If
>
>Huh?
>
>We have about 150 T1 customers, probably 20 or more of them are PPP.
>The PPP connections are just as stable as the HDLC connections.
>We run them on AGS's and 7513s, both individual serial cards and
>channelized T3.. numbered and unnumbered.

As for *stabliity*, you've been lucky as they send out random bad
packets with echo enabled, theres no way to gracefully bring down
the link (ie issuing a term request) and the performance is off vs
hdlc with echo enabled.

Of course I was talking about 2501's (as the discussion here 
certainly doesn't pertain to 7500 series routers), but I *assume*
that they are running the same protocol code on both. Maybe
not.

db