RE: (ASCEND) BGP?

To: Craig Salmond <salmond@unix.cde.com>
Subject: RE: (ASCEND) BGP?
From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 14:12:19 -0700
Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970804170149.25569B-100000@unix.cde.com>
References: <3.0.3.32.19970804114726.007235c4@darla>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 05:11 PM 8/4/97 -0400, Craig Salmond wrote:
>> Or should we just do the minimum so folks can have feeds to two AS's.
>	Just a thought,  but what if ascend moved to a "Compile Your Own
>Code" type arrangement. Everyone is concerned about code size, and this
>would be a great way to make everyone happy. Ascend could relase 2
>"binaries" of common load (i.e. tik.m40) and a third un-compiled release
>like with options like:
>
>Modulation:
>        Analog=Partial
>	    V.32=Yes
>	    V.34=Yes
>	    V.FC=YES
>	    K56F=No
>	Digital=Full  (means ISDN, CT1, Hybrid Access)
>Protocols:
>	IPX=Yes
>	IP=Yes
>Routing:
>	RIP=Both
>	OSPF=Yes
>	BGP=Full

Well, we were talking about the Max TNT which doesn't have codespace
limitations like the Max 4000. The Max 4000 will not have BGP. And don't
look for source code anytime soon. :)


Matt Holdrege  -  http://www.ascend.com  -  matt@ascend.com
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

Follow-Ups:

RE: (ASCEND) BGP?

From: Craig Salmond <salmond@unix.cde.com>

Re: (ASCEND) BGP?

From: M A Lewis <mlewis@cerberus.swmed.edu>

References:

RE: (ASCEND) BGP?

From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>

RE: (ASCEND) BGP?

From: Craig Salmond <salmond@unix.cde.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) v.fc/v.fast support when?
Next by Date: RE: (ASCEND) BGP?
Prev by thread: RE: (ASCEND) BGP?
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) BGP?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread