Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Ascend Max 4004 & Series56 Digital Modem Remote Gateway Probs (fwd)
In article <199806162232.PAA13697@shell4.ba.best.com> you wrote:
>PM RIP support is stellar - it is just RIPv1. Not doing RIPv2 is not the
>same has having problems. Livingston/Lucent deliberately skipped RIPv2 since
>it is inferior to OSPF, and they were working on, and then fielded a solid
But you'd probably agree that RIPv1 is certainly inferior to v2 as well,
when it comes to features (no handling of subnets etc..).
>OSPF base. They had RIPv2 running, I know they guy who wrote it one
>afternoon as a warm up, they deliberately decided not to support it because
>it is so inferior to OSPF. And their OSPF is simple to use and reliable.
Sounds quite reasonable, but then this explanation is not very helpful if
other equipment forces the customer to use RIP. Some of our older Ciscos
in remote locations don't support OSPF, so we're stuck with RIP v2 there.
Basically that ruled out the recycling of our old PM2's in those locations.
>Ascend did RIPv2 because it was taking them so long to beat OSPF into shape.
Not to defend Ascend, but I would doubt that this was the only reason to
support RIPv2. We're quite happy the Max does RIPv2, even though OSPF now
works as advertized (YMMV).
>Given the choice, use OSPF - a link state protocol beats a distance vector
>protocol any day.
Agreed, *if* you have the choice.
--
Oliver J. Albrecht <oj@nexus.flensbone.net>
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
References: