[c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 49, Issue 92

[gokhan senol]

----- Original Message ----
From: "cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net>
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 7:00:01 PM
Subject: cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 49, Issue 92


Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to
    cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
    cisco-nsp-owner at puck.nether.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Congestion Avoidence Method (Manaf El Oqlah)
   2. Re: Congestion Avoidence Method (Peter Salanki)
   3. Alternatives to Cisco switching (Jee Kay)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:35:35 +0200
From: "Manaf El Oqlah" <moqlah at batelco.jo>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Congestion Avoidence Method
To: "Peter Salanki" <peter.salanki at bahnhof.net>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID:
    <591D8758FF6E69408854F8B2D5887B3F4BB219 at BATEXCH.batelcojordan.jo>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"

Because the the download rate is very low comparing to other the
interface bandwidth!

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Salanki [mailto:peter.salanki at bahnhof.net] 
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 3:56 PM
To: Manaf El Oqlah
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: SV: [c-nsp] Congestion Avoidence Method

If you say that your interface is not congested, why would you need to
do congestion avoidance?




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:55:30 +0100
From: "Peter Salanki" <peter.salanki at bahnhof.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Congestion Avoidence Method
To: moqlah at batelco.jo
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <NlWD2DWJjvdm.YcDWQPqk at asmtp.port80.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

If you say that your interface is not congested, why would you need to do congestion avoidance?




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:40:14 +0000
From: "Jee Kay" <jeekay at gmail.com>
Subject: [c-nsp] Alternatives to Cisco switching
To: c-nsp <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Message-ID:
    <aad9e1ca0612240740k30b8fe4bm8ce7a14be5eec2bc at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

I realise it is a little uncouth to ask this on this list, but...

We're currently looking at doing some upgrades/refreshes of our
core/aggregation switching infrastructure. In the Cisco world, we're
looking at the 4506/4510Rs (SupV) for the aggregation and 6506/6509s
(Sup32) for the core layer.

What I'm wondering is... if I was to widen my scope to non-Cisco
equipment, what sort of vendors/models should I be looking at? How
'compatible' are things like RPVST across vendors?

I have a lot of infrastructure that needs to be able to fail over in
increasingly lower times (currently <10s, <1s in future)... I am not
so bothered about bandwidth, but things like BFD not being available
for OSPF on the Cisco platforms is something I really dislike.

And last but not least....  I have this constant nagging feeling that
we're being fleeced for the Cisco equipment :)

If anyone has any pointers for any of these bits they would be much
appreciated :)

Thanks,
Ras


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp


End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 49, Issue 92
*****************************************

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com