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)