|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem
Has anyone looked at Ascend's (NetStar Gigarouter). We have and like the direction. If they continue to deliver, I think they are going in the right direction. Still some parts missing, I hope we can hold on until they get here, but the direction is right. I think the open idea is the only way to go on this issue. Gary Zimmerman Savvis Communications http://www.savvis.com email: [email protected] "The only limits are those of vision." ---------- > From: Joseph T. Klein <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Paul Ferguson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "routing table slots" and the real problem > Date: Sunday, March 02, 1997 5:25 AM > > Warning -- I feel a diatribe emerging. ;-) > > Afordability is primarily a question of how large your existing > base of legacy routers is and your cash flow. > > You can build a box using a free versionof Unix (FreeBSD, NetBSD, > Linux, or whatever your religion of the day), off the shelf > hardware, and gated to route a full backbone routing table > (memory and CPU are cheap) for less than $3K. This is less > than the cost of a single interface card for a Cisco 7xxx! > > Kids; do not try this at your gateway without adult supervision. > :-) > > We are re-designing the Internet to make up for the fact the > largest manufacturers of routers has been slow to develop and > deploy systems that can keep up with the growth curve. A lot of > this comes down to size of the memory bus on low cost systems. > > If port density was not so poor on general purpose hardware, we > would have been far better off deploying "open systems" for routers > rather than what exists today. > > I have always liked my Ciscos, but I truly love routing with my Unix > systems running gated. ... now If I could find some cheap channelized > DS-3 cards for a DEC AlphaStation 500. ;-) > > I may be talking out of my hat here, but I suspect a DEC AlphaStation > 500 with 256M of RAM ranks pretty well against a 75xx. > > Somebody, dig up the stats for me ... > > If router manufacturers worked on hardware and all used an open > software standard ... such as gated ... we would all be better off. > Open standards allow all of us to benefit from the work of others. > The old Unix Guru's mantra is 'build on the works of others.' > > Let us not make the mistakes of the 1890s and associate domination > of the market by oligopolies as good capitalism. Big corporations, > like big government, tend to move slowly. > > Open markets NOT dominated by a single large player is GOOD > capitalism. It increases the pace of innovation and prevents > price fixing. It makes for a healthy, dynamic, marketplace. > > This holds true for routers, backbone providers, toasters > and operating systems (sorry Bill) > > open standards = open markets > > Open standards prevent the failures of a single market > player from inhibiting the growth of the industry. > > Open standards lower the cost to upgrade large installed > systems. > > Reductions in the federal budget are squeezing R&D expenditures in > the US to an all time low. Large corporate downsizing and corporate > mergers have done the same for most large corporations. The bulk > of innovation in the US will come from small companies and > development consortiums. > > It is from these that the next generations of routers will > come. Open standards make the rapid utilization of new > technologies possible and fuel the growth of small companies. > > The Internet is a great place for consorting on standards. > This is what is cool about the IETF! > > Standards do not keep the big boys from playing ... > Cisco and Bay could easily join in an open standard > for router software. It would not be hard to have interoperability > between the IP portions of IOS and gated. > > IOS is the PL-1 of routers. Bay's management reminds me of CICS. ;-) > > Back to the subject ... > > You CAN also use the RA (where available) to reduce your routing > overhead, save memory and reduce CPU usage. (The RA runs a hacked > version of gated that calculates large routing tables quite well.) > > Hmm ... > > router $100,000 amortized over 3 years = 2,800/month > going DS-3 price at a NAP with line = 7,000/month > engineer $70,000 per year min. = 5,900/month > overhead for a small company = 20,000/month > > $50+/month/mile for OC-3 lines ... don't even talk about > local loop costs! > > Routers connect customers. > customers = cash flow. > > The highest cost of running a national network is not buying routers, > it is bandwidth, staff, and administrative overhead. > > Router cost is primarily a factor for smaller networks with limited > cash flow. > > I contend ... > > It is the ISPs who try to be dual homed with 'routing tricks' rather > than using edge routers that can process a core routing table, who > contribute most to routing instability. > > Boardwatch stated that 14% of ISPs are dual homed. I would bet > that 70% of those do not use routers capable of processing a core > routing table. > > Anybody have any stats? > > We need cheap routers that run BGP4 and can eat a core routing table. > 2501s just don't hack it in dual homed configurations ... and most > small guys just don't wish to blow $50,000 on putting 7505s at the > edges of their networks. > > > --- On Sun, 02 Mar 1997 13:48:46 -0500 Paul Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: > > At 01:39 PM 3/2/97 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > > > > > >True enough. Of course, this doesn't mean that we can't have routing > > >table growth, as we will have processor capacity growth, but it does > > >mean that the growth of the routing tables must be kept in line with > > >what the router processors can do. > > > > > > > True enough. However, it might also be novel to keep the cost > > down to a level that people can actually afford. > > > > - paul > > > > ---------------End of Original Message----------------- > > -- > From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net > E-mail: [email protected] Sent: 13:25:09 CST/CDT 03/02/97 > > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." > -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|