On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:13:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
This document supports that. If the definition of a software router is one that doesn't have a fixed at the factory forwarding function, then the ASR1K is one.
The code running in the ASICs on line cards in 6500-series chassis isn't fixed at the factory. Same with the code running on the PFCs in those boxes. There's not a tremendous amount of flexibility to make changes after the fact, because the code is so tightly integrated with the hardware, but there is some.
(Not saying the 6500 is a software-based platform. It's pretty clearly a hardware-based platform under most peoples' definition. But: the line is blurry.)
-- Brett
Surely the important point for most forwarding engines is that there is isolation between control, management and forwarding planes? If I'm looking for a box, I want line rate forwarding on all interfaces. I want stateless ACLs and policing functions on the forwarding plane. I want to use those functions to protect the control and management planes. I want the control plane to cope with the required amount of forwarding state and churn. I want the management plane to be somewhat as capable as the Linux tools I run to maintain the network. I don't honestly care whether it is a single cpu, multi-core multi-cpu, ASIC or NPU. That being said, for the networks I help maintain, the C6K meets most of those requirements. I think the N7K is movement in the right direction. I consider both to be L2/L3 switches :-) -- Tim:>