georgeb at gmail
Apr 7, 2012, 8:31 AM
Post #3 of 3
On the other hand, the TurboIron's are cut through switches, not store
and forward so they shouldn't NEED as large a buffer. And if you have
enough congestion to cause packet drop, you want TCP to back off a
little. They have enough buffer to handle most microburst.
conditions. Give them plenty of uplink and it shouldn't be a problem.
I generally use 20 to 40G of uplink capacity depending on the
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick [at] foobar> wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2012, at 14:32, Greg Dok <gregdok [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Though we understand, Vyatta is pretty stable nowadays and would just work well with next-hop attribute as long as the network don’t change too often.
> Vyatta uses quagga as its rib management engine. Not sure about the vyatta branch, but mainline quagga is-is support is flaky.
> Turboirons are ok switches but they have very small port buffers. This may or may not be a concern for you.
> Which solution is best for you depends on lots of details, eg your budget, expected traffic rates, support requirements, power and space issues, etc.
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp [at] puck
foundry-nsp mailing list
foundry-nsp [at] puck