I will agree with the knife drawer ;-)...
Not only that, now we have people that can now play with an IOS without having
to spend a couple of grand ($$$$$$)... I would also suggest that you check ALL
routers that are within this price range (3Com, Ascend, Joe's garage)... Most
routers in this price range will only support RIP and RIPV2 (maybe)... The price
for OSPF code may not be worth it for this market. There is a cost to OSPF. Not
an RFC issue, I think it is more a cost issue and the knowledge of the target
market ( Target Market = small office, home use). I remember several backbone
companies that didn't support OSPF, or were running a kludged version, in their
first release, only RIPV2. When nobody buys your product you tend to get the
code integrated pretty quick.
Also, things I do easily on a 2500 through 85xx aren't even capable on the 804,
in just the base configuration (lack of memory/nvram)... Me, I'm glad they don't
have ospf on the 800 series... The maximum memory on the 800 is 12M so putting
an enterprise class code on it may be a waste...
Ron Buchalski wrote:
> Martin shockingly writes:
>
> >From: Martin Cooper <mjc@cooper.org.uk>
> >To: Danny McPherson <danny@ice.ip.qwest.net>
> >CC: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net, fred@cisco.com
> >Subject: Re: SHOCK NEWS: Cisco not RFC-1812 compliant
> >Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:13:23 +0000
> >
> > > If anything, the RFC should be updated.. RFCs are at most BCP
> > > documents, not law .. it's really not that shocking. Really.
> >
> >Yes alright, I was being hyperbolic - but even so, I don't think
> >the RFC capitalised all the words in the phrase "MUST IMPLEMENT
> >OSPF" for no reason - according to RFC form, it seems that it is
> >normally only the adverb ("MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY" etc.) that gets
> >capitalised - perhaps someone thought that implementing a good IGP
> >in production routers was important for some reason. ;-)
> >
> >It strikes me that Cisco's implementation policy in this case
> >had more to do with marketing people looking to screw more cash
> >out of customers than a sound engineering reason for not following
> >the RFC. Of course, I could be wrong.
>
> Well, did you ever think that, by _not_ putting OSPF onto a small router
> platform like the 800, that Cisco would be preventing people like _you_ from
> calling their TAC to complain that your "five hundred Cisco 800 Series
> routers, all in Area 0, are pegging the CPU every time there's a change in
> the network"?
>
> Stay away from the knife drawer, Martin. ;-)
>
> -rb
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"Failure is not an option"
Gene Cranz, Apollo 13 mission
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Everett Dowd edowd@clark.net
CCIE #2409 http://www.clark.net/pub/edowd
Just bein' virtual =8^) Welcome to the 'net
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:08 EDT