> >Well if it was NT then no wonder. But this is hardly a failing of Cisco if
>> >NT cant speak RIPv2 according to RFCs. But microsoft has a disturbing
>> >tendency to ignore RFCs not just in the area of routing.
>> Agree but prove it!! Then sue...
>
>And what good would suing do? It certainly wouldnt get the problem fixed.
>I dont quite understand this mentality of corporations "linux doesnt have
>anyone to sue, so we cant use it". Name any corporation that has ever
>successfully sued Microsoft over a bug, and came out ahead. I think I can
>count the number of companies on no hands.
I agree - waste of time.
As for Cisco routers, the final decision was based on support. In this
case we were suffering.
I don't know if our RIP implementations were "broken" or not - NT3.5.1 and NT4
BUT for us, the decision was expedient. "Eliminate the problem in the middle"
Which unfortunately were the Cisco routers (4)
>
>> >I wasnt aware MacOS spoke RIPv2.
>> Quite True - The Macs really weren't involved.
>> BUT using "Whatroute" ON A MAC as well as various tests from the Unix boxes
>> proved to us that the routers didn't function satisfactorily.
>
>In what way specifically. Our ciscos are happily RIPv2'ing away with
>various devices and terminal servers on our network.
Within our network, we seemed to lose entries in the routers table for
various clients and nodes during the working day. Timeouts or whatever
we didn't know. On top of that Ripquery, traceroute and basic ping failed
when looking from one subnet to another - admittedly Unix to NT(!)
Regards,
Bruce.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu