|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: GigaRouter (Was Re: Cisco as Big Brother))
> I said how it could be done, not that it ought to be done. I have found
> a P5-150 with BSD/OS, GateD, ScreenD, and DEC FDDI or Ether (PCI DMA either
> way) to be a perfectly useful gateway/firewall. It won't do full FDDI but
> my root name server can't tell the difference so I must not be facing that
> load. I've also run four T1's, or 64 28.8K modems, through one of these
> boxes. But the bit and packet loads in these cases are "trivial" compared
> to a core router inside any nationwide/worldwide network, either Inter or
> Intra. When only a Cisco or Netstar will do, my boxes are toys. But the
> world has an ongoing need for more toys -- not every router is doing 300K
> packets per second with multiple OC12 links.
Really, I do not like PC-based routers, through this kind of routers have some
advantages:
(1) when PC-based router became out of memory, I have to add some more memory -
I pay about 200$ for extra 16Mb of ram, and that's all;
(2) when PC-based router became out of CPU, it can be upgraded to the
faster CPU easy. Intel's power increases draqmatically every month, and I have'not
pay extra 100,000$ for the new super/giga/huge-ROUTER (as 7513) -
I pay new 1,500$ and get new PC with Pentium/200, for example.
And I know there would be available better processor in next 6 month -
and I would'not have to pay next 100,000$ (or I there have to pay
new 20,000$ for the new CS4700, for example - why can't I change
CPU in CS4500, or why can't I add extra 32Mb of the RAM into my CS4500,
and WHY have I to pay 3,500$ for the 32Mb ram if this RAM costs
600$ on the free market???).
This is the advantages of PC. Hope you know disadvantages too -:)
> To the argument that Cisco IOS is inherently easier or harder to configure
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -:)
This is a joke... there is nothing more complex and orderless than
IOS's config -:)
> than GateD, I say: "Feh." If you can get an IOS geek with 7+ years worth
> of IOS-shaped tire tracks down their backside, then IOS will seem a lot more
> powerful. If all you can get is me, IOS will seem slippery and awkward and
> confusing and gated.conf will seem like deliverance. Anybody who cuts and
> pastes config examples to demonstrate why one is "obviously clearer" is just
> blowing smoke. The rare element here is human expertise, not documentation
> clarity or parser simplicity or any of the things geeks like to argue about.
>
> In an overlooked comment of a few days ago, someone here mentioned that it
> was generally easier to get someone with nonzero expertise to come help run
> your network if you configured it via Cisco IOS rather than gated.conf. And
> this is true. For now. If someone else gets market share (which is usually
> done via other means than technical merit, btw) then the other guy's config
> syntax will start to get known by more folks. Given that it is *definitely*
> better to build a network that new hires can help you run, if that network
> is expected to grow at all, Cisco IOS has a real edge right now. I don't
> consider Cisco terribly vulnerable since if they wanted to drop their prices
> by half they'd still make a pile of money. Not someone to compete against;
> they can beat you coming or going. That's why I so admire the folks who
> *are* trying to beat Cisco in this game. What chuzpah! <clink>.
>
---
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|