If y'all can deal with the BU, the Cat9k family is looking half-decent: MPLS PE/P, BGP L3VPN, BGP EVPN (VXLAN dataplane not MPLS) etc. UADP programmable pipeline ASIC, FIB ~200k, E-LLW, mandatory DNA license now covers software support... Of course you do have to deal with a BU that lives in a parallel universe (SDA, LISP, NEAT etc) - but the hardware is the right price-perf, and IOS-XE is tolerable. No large FIB today, but Cisco appears to be headed towards "Silicon One" for all of their platforms: RTC ASIC strapped over some HBM. The strategy is interesting: sell it as a chip, sell it whitebox, sell it fully packaged. YMMV On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:40 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
I think it's less about just the forwarding chips and more about an entire solution that someone can go and buy without having to fiddle with it.
You remember the saying, "Gone are the days when men were men and wrote their own drivers"? Well, running a network is a full-time job, without having to learn how to code for hardware and protocols.
There are many start-ups that are working off of commodity chips and commodity face plates. Building software for those disparate hardware systems, and then developing the software so that it can be used in commercial deployments is non-trivial. That is the leverage Cisco, Juniper, Nokia... even Huawei, have, and they won't let us forget it.
Then again, if one's vision is bold enough, they could play the long game, start now, patiently build, and then come at us in 8 or so years. Because the market, surely, can't continue at the rate we are currently going. Everything else around us is dropping in price and revenue, and yet traditional routing and switching equipment continues to stay the same, if not increase. That's broken!`
Mark.
On 19/Jun/20 13:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
But talking about commodity isn't this mainly Broadcom ? And is there single chip there which does not support line rate IP ? Or is there any chip which supports MPLS and cost less then IP/MPLS one ?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:22 PM Benny Lyne Amorsen via cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benny Lyne Amorsen <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk> <benny+usenet@amorsen.dk> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:12:06 +0200 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why? Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi> <saku@ytti.fi> writes:
This is simply not fundamentally true, it may be true due to market perversion. But give student homework to design label switching chip and IPv6 switching chip, and you'll use less silicon for the label switching chip. And of course you spend less overhead on the tunnel.
What you say is obviously true.
However, no one AFAIK makes an MPLS switch at prices comparable to basic layer 3 IPv6 switches. You can argue that it is a market failure as much as you want, but I can only buy what is on the market. According to the market, MPLS is strictly Service Provider, with the accompanying Service Provider markup (and then ridiculous discounts to make the prices seem reasonable). Enterprise and datacenter are not generally using MPLS, and I can only look on in envy at the prices of their equipment.
There is room for a startup to rethink the service provider market by using commodity enterprise equipment. Right now that means dumping MPLS, since that is only available (if at all) at the most expensive license level. Meanwhile you can get get low-scale BGPv6 and line-speed GRE with commodity hardware without extra licenses.
I am not saying that it will be easy to manage such a network, the tooling for MPLS is vastly superior. I am merely saying that with just a simple IPv6-to-the-edge network you can deliver similar services to an MPLS-to-the-edge network at lower cost, if you can figure out how to build the tooling.
Per-packet overhead is hefty. Is that a problem today?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benny Lyne Amorsen via cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:12:06 +0200 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Devil's Advocate - Segment Routing, Why? _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.nethttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.nethttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ .
-- Tim:>