>
>
> And yet, despite the fact that both CPU and RAM are cheap, ever tried to
> load a 25xx with two T1s and some SIMPLE (read: IP spoofing) filters on
> the interfaces?
Uh, yes, doing it right now, no sweat.
> There's definitely something to be said for having a nice clean codebase.
> While I'd absolutely love it if my PMs would speak a real routing
> protocol (:) or have a command history buffer on par with cisco's,
> they do the job they're designed for well.
Oh, no doubt about it, I like Livingston. It is much simpler to configure,
and does what it does well. With OSPF on the horizon, life will be much
simpler(no more static route kludges.)
> Frankly, it's easy to say "throw more power at the problem and it'll go
> away," but that's *not* how life works. A poorly coded product will run
> slower on a hardware platform that's ten times faster in many cases.
> Which isn't to say that IOS is poorly coded - but it's definitely
> a REALLY big cow to drag around the inside of your routers. :) (But yes,
> we do use ciscos exlusively for routers).
However to be fair, Cisco doesn't simply throw power at a problem. They
also throw features. Sometime cool features, which take up 10 or 15
manuals, and features that their tech support department know little
about(as I have found out the hard way.)
Free advice:
Livingston, please *NEVER* go to CD-ROM docs as a primary method of
documentation. It really, really sucks.....
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/