On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 07:20:15PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > Yes, but then it does look kind of poor when the company the
> > guy who edited the RFC works for doesn't bother to implement
> > it properly...
>
> I thought you said it didn't implement it at all - is it now supporting it
> but with bugs? Make up my mind, please.
>
The problem is that people are jumping to the wrong conclusions
here.
The Cisco 800 is a very low end cpe router. If you want to run
OSPF, use a 2600, 36xx, 72xx, 75xx, 12xxx router. Why use a very low end
cpe box to do something that is really a core function?
Well, the thing is that the low end machines don't have the cpu
to handle all the link-state changes.
They also don't typically have memory for a large link-state database.
If you want a real routing protocol, use a real router.
Period.
Very simple. Don't let the alarmists that say "cisco is broken,
nyeah!" bug you.
/sigh
OSPF is not as easy as rip. It is more cpu intensive. Use
the correct router for the correct solution.
- jared
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine. END OF LINE |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:08 EDT