As far as I know open source solutions doesn't have support for fabric or high speed asics. So the throughput will always be a big difference. Unless you are comparing a pure packet software interrupt platform. ------Original Message------ From: Adam Armstrong To: Venkatesh Sriram To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Routers in Data Centers Sent: Sep 25, 2010 7:18 PM On 24/09/2010 11:22, Venkatesh Sriram wrote:
Hi,
Can somebody educate me on (or pass some pointers) what differentiates a router operating and optimized for data centers versus, say a router work in the metro ethernet space? What is it thats required for routers operating in data centers? High throughput, what else?
Depending upon the specific requirements of the scenario at each type of site, the optimal devices could be either identical, or completely different. :) adam. Sent via my BlackBerry® device from Claro
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010, ym1r.jr@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I know open source solutions doesn't have support for fabric or high speed asics. So the throughput will always be a big difference. Unless you are comparing a pure packet software interrupt platform.
Hasn't there been a post about this to the contrary? Isn't someone from Google presenting at NANOG about this? Adrian
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:54 PM, <ym1r.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
As far as I know open source solutions doesn't have support for fabric or high speed asics. So the throughput will always be a big difference. Unless you are comparing a pure packet software interrupt platform.
Not high speed ASICs, but there are hardware-forwarding open-source(in a broad definition) solutions: http://netfpga.org There are 3 related presentations on NANOG 50, which suggests these solutions are reaching "real ops" quality. Rubens
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Not high speed ASICs, but there are hardware-forwarding open-source(in a broad definition) solutions: http://netfpga.org
There are 3 related presentations on NANOG 50, which suggests these solutions are reaching "real ops" quality.
I hate to sound (more) like a broken record but if people want to see open source hardware forwarding platforms succeeding (and the software platforms get better), then look at trying to be involved in their development. Too many companies seem to think open source equates to "free stuff that I can use and not pay for"; rather than thinking of it as a normal product (with development cycles, resources, etc that any commercial development requires) that gives them the ability to choose their own direction rather than be beholden to the whims of a vendor. One of the fun divides in open source at times is the big gap between "works" and "works in practice". The only way to get "ops ready" stuff is to work with open source people to make it actually work in your environment rather than "what works for them". :-) (Or you could wait for Google - but doesn't that make you beholden to them as your vendor? :) Adrian -- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $24/pm+GST entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -
I'm more than interested in developing a much cheaper, hardware forwarding router.. I think there is a lot of room for innovation - especially at the target market in this thread. If anyone wants to work with me on this, just let me know! I've got a tonne of ideas and a bit of free time.. NetFPGA is a good platform, im saving my pennies to buy one and do some development. Its only a 4 port device, so not a device you would really use in production however.
I hate to sound (more) like a broken record but if people want to see open source hardware forwarding platforms succeeding (and the software platforms get better), then look at trying to be involved in their development.
I'm more than interested in developing a much cheaper, hardware forwarding router.. I think there is a lot of room for innovation - especially at the target market in this thread. If anyone wants to work with me on this, just let me know! I've got a tonne of ideas and a bit of free time..
NetFPGA is a good platform, im saving my pennies to buy one and do some development. Its only a 4 port device, so not a device you would really use in production however.
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view (current 340k routes).
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view (current 340k routes).
It's just a development platform for prototyping designs, not something you would use in production... I want to use it to implement and test ideas that I have, and play with some different forwarding architectures, not use it as a final product :)
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Heath Jones <hj1980@gmail.com> wrote:
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view (current 340k routes).
It's just a development platform for prototyping designs, not something you would use in production... I want to use it to implement and test ideas that I have, and play with some different forwarding architectures, not use it as a final product :)
also, does a datacenter router/switch need a full table? isn't that the job of the peering/transit routers in your scheme?
----- Original Message ----- On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Heath Jones <hj1980@gmail.com> wrote:
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view (current 340k routes).
It's just a development platform for prototyping designs, not something you would use in production... I want to use it to implement and test ideas that I have, and play with some different forwarding architectures, not use it as a final product :)
also, does a datacenter router/switch need a full table? isn't that the job of the peering/transit routers in your scheme? Sometimes, but often you get odd results when internal gateway routers only see a pair of default gateways via OSPF or IS-IS. Sometimes the only real fix is to have a full table on these routers as well as your border/peering routers. James
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view (current 340k routes).
It's just a development platform for prototyping designs, not something you would use in production... I want to use it to implement and test ideas that I have, and play with some different forwarding architectures, not use it as a final product :)
also, does a datacenter router/switch need a full table? isn't that the job of the peering/transit routers in your scheme?
In my small network the datacenter router is also the peering/transit router.
participants (7)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Christopher Morrow -
Heath Jones -
Ingo Flaschberger -
James P. Ashton -
Rubens Kuhl -
ym1r.jr＠gmail.com