Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...
At 03:41 AM 10/17/97 -0400, Jason Nealis wrote:
>
>Ouch.. Kevin? any word on this report? I believe the code that
>was on the TNT was 1.3ap6 pretty recent... Although they
>didn't say what revision the Modem cards were and the shelf controller
>was.
Here's my 2 cents:
First of all, Lanquest didn't say if the modems were V.34 or 56k. They did
basically a router test, not an Access Server test. They tested packet
sizes of 64K and 256K when most of our customers have average packets sizes
of 800K (for email and http.)
There are a few other things I could criticize them on, but this whole
thing gets petty. There was a Tolly test on the TNT which was a network
access server based test. This test showed the TNT performing far better
than the Cisco/Lanquest test did.
Back when I was a customer, I never paid much attention to reports in trade
mags. They never seemed to be based in reality. I always recommend that
folks test the equipment in a real network doing the exact job that you
need it for.
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:
References: