Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Greg Bro » Fri, 07 Jun 1996 04:00:00



Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?

Thanks.

--

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by joel » Sat, 08 Jun 1996 04:00:00



> Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
> Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
> Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?

> Thanks.

> --


Regarding the throughput of the Ascend vs. P50.

It depends on the type of router you are connecting to at your ISP.
I have been successful connecting a P50 to my Ciscos with one B channel
but when you go to 2B (MPP), results are varied.

If your ISP is using Ascend product, I would suggest going with Ascend
and the same with Cisco.

As a footnote, I have vast experience with both P50 and Cisco 750 series
and they both do a fantastic job.

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Greg Bro » Sat, 08 Jun 1996 04:00:00


: Regarding the throughput of the Ascend vs. P50.
:
: It depends on the type of router you are connecting to at your ISP.

It is hospital to hospital; no isp

: As a footnote, I have vast experience with both P50 and Cisco 750 series
: and they both do a fantastic job.

Nobody in the world seems to have compared P50's and Cisco 750s or Cisco 1004s.
It seems to be one of those mysteries. One test showed the P50 as superior
for thru-put, but the Cisco 1004 had something strange going on, so the test
is suspect (Lan Times, Feb 5,1996).

--

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Alex.Blig » Wed, 12 Jun 1996 04:00:00



> Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
> Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
> Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?

We compared the European equiv. of a 1004 and Pipelines. The
Pipelines worked and carried on working. The Ciscos didn't (lasted
a couple of hours) - any software revision. The pipelines
also gave substantially better throughput esp. with compression.
And they are dead easy to configure. While normally a great
Cisco fan, for ISDN2 access, the Pipeline wins.

--
Alex Bligh
Xara Networks

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Keith O'Brie » Thu, 13 Jun 1996 04:00:00


IMHO the Cisco 750 product line is not at the same level as the P50 from
Ascend.

The Cisco 750 does not support TACACS while the Ascend does.  This is
important
since the 750 needs to connect to another 750 to take advantage of the
STAC compression
with 2 B channels.  This means that the hub site 750 should have the
ability to authenticate
users beyond CHAP or PAP.  Currently the Cisco does not.  

In addition, for those using the SecurID cards the next release of P50
software will also
support the SecurID client.  Cisco has no such plans.

Finally, I have found Cisco support of the 750 product line to be less
than desirable.  When I called
the TAC the response I received was "What is a 750??"  I was bounced
around to numerous groups
until a received an individual who was tasked with the support of the 750
product line.  Even at that
point it seemed that this group did not have a lot of experience with this
product and it took two days
for the group to recommend a software patch to get the 750 to bridge
traffic.  

For those who are considering the 750 for compatibility with Cisco routers
running IOS be aware
that at this point in time the 750 and the IOS routers are essentially
different products.  The 750 does
not run IOS nor can it be managed from Cisco Works.

Keith O'Brien
MCI Telecommunications
Opinions are my own and not my employer, MCI



> : Regarding the throughput of the Ascend vs. P50.
> :
> : It depends on the type of router you are connecting to at your ISP.

> It is hospital to hospital; no isp

> : As a footnote, I have vast experience with both P50 and Cisco 750
series
> : and they both do a fantastic job.

> Nobody in the world seems to have compared P50's and Cisco 750s or Cisco
1004s.
> It seems to be one of those mysteries. One test showed the P50 as
superior
> for thru-put, but the Cisco 1004 had something strange going on, so the
test
> is suspect (Lan Times, Feb 5,1996).

> --


 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by David MacMah » Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>The Cisco 750 does not support TACACS while the Ascend does.
>This means that the hub site 750 should have the ability to authenticate
>users beyond CHAP or PAP.  Currently the Cisco does not.  
>In addition, for those using the SecurID cards the next release of P50
>software will also support the SecurID client.  Cisco has no such plans.
>The 750 does not run IOS nor can it be managed from Cisco Works.

Do you know if any of these limitations have been addressed by the
new 760 series?

Did Cisco pick up the 750 series when they bought Combinet?

Is the 760 series a more "Cisco-ish" version of the "Combinet-ish"
750 series?

Thanks for any answers to these questions,
Dave

David MacMahon

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Greg Bro » Tue, 18 Jun 1996 04:00:00


Thank you, I knew somebody had to have looked at both.

: >
: > Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
: > Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
: > Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?
:
: We compared the European equiv. of a 1004 and Pipelines. The
: Pipelines worked and carried on working. The Ciscos didn't (lasted
: a couple of hours) - any software revision. The pipelines
: also gave substantially better throughput esp. with compression.
: And they are dead easy to configure. While normally a great
: Cisco fan, for ISDN2 access, the Pipeline wins.
:
:
: --
: Alex Bligh
: Xara Networks

--

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by drad.. » Wed, 19 Jun 1996 04:00:00



>: >
>: > Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
>: > Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
>: > Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?
>:
>: We compared the European equiv. of a 1004 and Pipelines. The
>: Pipelines worked and carried on working. The Ciscos didn't (lasted
>:

I have the oppposite view. I examined the Pipeline 25 and 50 versus the
CiscoPro 753 and 752, and found the CiscoPro to have better throughput
and ease of setup.  Recent reviews (Lan Magazine) of the the Ascend
boxes has shown some bugs in compression.

A major ISDN question is the host (PRI) box.  I really didn't like the Ascend MAX
very much.  The CiscoPro 900 (I have 8) is very nice.

Now, if Cisco would only give me SmartNet on the 900's, I'd be a happy
camper.  Cisco seems confused about the direction for their ISDN products.

Don Radick
Senior Network Analyst
Holiday Inn Worldwide.

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Andrew Bens » Wed, 19 Jun 1996 04:00:00


: >
: > Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
: > Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
: > Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?
:
: We compared the European equiv. of a 1004 and Pipelines. The
: Pipelines worked and carried on working. The Ciscos didn't (lasted
: a couple of hours) - any software revision. The pipelines
: also gave substantially better throughput esp. with compression.
: And they are dead easy to configure. While normally a great
: Cisco fan, for ISDN2 access, the Pipeline wins.

The Pipline series from Ascend is very nice and has most features
you would want, except that, in my experience, they've been unreliable --
rebooting,*, etc.

The Cisco 7xx is good for home, cuz it has a pots jack(s).

If this doesn't matter, then the 1004 is much better.  It's a real,
albeit baby, router.

Andrew

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Andrew Bens » Wed, 19 Jun 1996 04:00:00


: Did Cisco pick up the 750 series when they bought Combinet?

Yep.

In my opinion, they ought the give combinet back.  The cisco-ish
stuff is much nicer. :)

: Is the 760 series a more "Cisco-ish" version of the "Combinet-ish"
: 750 series?

Dunno.  I think the software is the same.

Andrew

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Alex.Blig » Thu, 20 Jun 1996 04:00:00




> >: >
> >: > Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
> >: > Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
> >: > Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?
> >:
> >: We compared the European equiv. of a 1004 and Pipelines. The
> >: Pipelines worked and carried on working. The Ciscos didn't (lasted
> >:

> I have the oppposite view. I examined the Pipeline 25 and 50 versus the
> CiscoPro 753 and 752, and found the CiscoPro to have better throughput
> and ease of setup.  Recent reviews (Lan Magazine) of the the Ascend
> boxes has shown some bugs in compression.

> A major ISDN question is the host (PRI) box.  I really didn't like the Ascend MAX
> very much.  The CiscoPro 900 (I have 8) is very nice.

This application didn't involve PRI. It was Cisco BRI<->Cisco BRI
vs. Ascend BRI <-> Ascend BRI.

Cisco's explanation was "the software still had bugs in
in February", so YMMV.

--
Alex Bligh
Xara Networks

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Greg Bro » Fri, 21 Jun 1996 04:00:00


: I have the oppposite view. I examined the Pipeline 25 and 50 versus the
: CiscoPro 753 and 752, and found the CiscoPro to have better throughput
: and ease of setup.  Recent reviews (Lan Magazine) of the the Ascend

 Can you tell me what month? ?????

: boxes has shown some bugs in compression.

April '96 has an article about p24 and p50s, with
connection speeds, but I recall no bugs with compression. Lan TIMES Feb 6,
1996 had an article, but it was the Cisco 1004 that had the bugs (with
compression), the Ascend P50 worked fine.

I emailed the authors at Network Computing who wrote an article about isdn
routers (Oct 1, 1995). Their comment was that Cisco wouldn't give them
anything to test. In their test, the Acsends came out on top of the other
routers tested. So the only extant comparison of Cisco 1004 and Ascend P50
is the Lan Times, which showed the Ascends worked with high thru-put with
compression, and with the Cisco box, one would be better turning off
compression.

I have specified Ascend P50s for a project, but the paper work is sitting
on my desk, and they haven't been ordered yet. So if anybody has any info
about Cisco vs. Ascend for BRI-BRI routing, please let me know.

Thanks.

--

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by drad.. » Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:00:00




>: I have the oppposite view. I examined the Pipeline 25 and 50 versus the
>: CiscoPro 753 and 752, and found the CiscoPro to have better throughput
>: and ease of setup.  Recent reviews (Lan Magazine) of the the Ascend

> Can you tell me what month? ?????

>: boxes has shown some bugs in compression.

Lan Magazine March 96.
The author found 1 channel throughput of 83 kbps on plain text files, but
53 kbps on a zip file.  This shows that compression was messed up.
FWIW, the author (senior technical reviewer at Lan Mag) did not understand
this problem.

>I have specified Ascend P50s for a project, but the paper work is sitting
>on my desk, and they haven't been ordered yet. So if anybody has any info
>about Cisco vs. Ascend for BRI-BRI routing, please let me know.

>--


For your project, probably either Ascend or Cisco will work fine.  I've read
many reviews, and each review seems to like a different BRI box.

Don Radick
Senior Network Engineer

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Fred R. Goldste » Mon, 24 Jun 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>Lan Magazine March 96.
>The author found 1 channel throughput of 83 kbps on plain text files, but
>53 kbps on a zip file.  This shows that compression was messed up.
>FWIW, the author (senior technical reviewer at Lan Mag) did not understand
>this problem.

Where's the bug?  Plaintext *should* compress more than that, but it
depends on how "plain".  The ZIP was just about right, since it can't
be further compressed.

BTW I always have problems with the Ascend MAXs for dialing in, since
Ascend's CCP is*and won't interoperate.

My sources tell me the Cisco 760 series is more Cisco-ish than the
750 series, which came from Combinet.  But I haven't actually seen one.
--

Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

 
 
 

Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Post by Matt Holdre » Mon, 24 Jun 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>BTW I always have problems with the Ascend MAXs for dialing in, since
>Ascend's CCP is*and won't interoperate.

Actually Ascend interoperated with several routers and PPP stacks at the
recent CIUG interoperability testing. But here are the issues.

CCP is still not quite a standard although its real close now. Ascend used
to support only a 5 byte length STAC option. The draft now supports a 6 byte
length. Many vendors chose to support backwards compatability with Ascend
and would negotiate 5 byte or 6. Some Cisco products do this today.

Ascend now supports a 6 byte STAC option which is Radius selectable. We tried
this at CIUG and it works very well.

 
 
 

1. Ascend Pipline 50 or Cisco 750s, or Cisco 1004?

Does anybody know what has more through put in the real world?
Does anyone knoe what compression method the Ciscos use?
Any experiences from users that use Ascend and Cisco products?

Thanks.

--

2. Gcode95 Generates CNC code from AutoCad DXF files

3. Cisco 1004 vs. CiscoPro 1004

4. class action

5. FS: Ascend Pipline 50 Office ISDN Router

6. FS> MBX1230 Expansion Card for A1200

7. GREAT! Ascend Pipline 50 Pricing & Availability!

8. Need HELP in font spacing.

9. Making Cisco 1003/1004 work with Ascend P50 BRI