I've also heard that Cisco own's a large part of Lanquest. So they seem to have lanquest in thier Hip Pocket.. I read this Tolly group report, This is what the Bay guys were handing out this report to everyone out at ISPCON. Pretty much if you pay for it you win. Hey, Maybe I'll start a company and do comparasion reports and makes lots of money :) Jason Nealis Director Internet Operations Network Access Erols Internet On Sat, 18 Oct 1997, Peter wrote: > What about this test, Bay 5399 vs TNT: > > <A HREF="http://www.tolly.com/dynamic/Pdf_Temp/9300-7288.pdf">http://www.tolly.com/dynamic/Pdf_Temp/9300-7288.pdf</A> > > - it is Tolly based > - it paid from Bay > > Any comment? > > Regards > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com> > To: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com> > Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com <ascend-users@bungi.com> > Date: 17. oktober 1997 19:51 > Subject: 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 - <A HREF="http://www.ascend.com">http://www.ascend.com</A> - matt@ascend.com > >++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ > >To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com > >To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>> > > > ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++ To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com To get FAQ'd: <<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>> </PRE> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <HR> <STRONG>References</STRONG>: <UL> <LI><STRONG><A HREF="msg09804.html">Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...</A></STRONG></LI> <UL> <LI><EM>From</EM>: "Peter" <ales.pronet@eunet.si></LI> </UL> </UL> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <HR> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09810.html">Re: (ASCEND) Uh-Oh ..... ;)</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09809.html">Re: (ASCEND) Uh-Oh ..... ;)</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09804.html">Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg09867.html">Re: (ASCEND) Don't look so hot...</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="mail9.html#09808"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thrd206.html#09808"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> </BODY> </HTML>