Re: Converged Networks Threat (Was: Level3 Outage)
This is possible today. Build your own routers using the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves only to router packages from major vendors then we are doomed to using outdated technology at inflated prices.
Tell you what Michael, build me some of those, have it pass my labs and I'll give you millions in business. Deal?
The problem with your lab is that you have too many millions to give. In order to win those millions people would have to prove that their box is at least as good as C and J in the core of the largest Internet backbones in the world. That is an awfully big hurdle and attempting it costs so much money that anyone would be a fool to try it unless they already had millions in the bank. History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically better than anything on the market, your best route for success is to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the technical advances that you can provide and is willing to pay for those technical advances. I don't think that describes the larger Internet provider networks. --Michael Dillon
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:48:55 GMT, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com said:
History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically better than anything on the market, your best route for success is to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the technical advances that you can provide and is willing to pay for those technical advances. I don't think that describes the larger Internet provider networks.
So your target market is those mom&pop ISPs that *dont* buy their Ciscos from eBay? :)
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:48:55PM +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
This is possible today. Build your own routers using the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves only to router packages from major vendors then we are doomed to using outdated technology at inflated prices.
Tell you what Michael, build me some of those, have it pass my labs and I'll give you millions in business. Deal?
The problem with your lab is that you have too many millions to give. In order to win those millions people would have to prove that their box is at least as good as C and J in the core of the largest Internet backbones in the world. That is an awfully big
Let me try this one more time. From the top. You said: begin quote software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves only to router packages from major vendors then we are doomed to using outdated technology at inflated prices. end quote So now we have
to give. In order to win those millions people would have to prove that their box is at least as good as C and J in the core of the
So the outdated technology at inflated prices is too high of a hurdle to pass for the magic Click Modular Software router, the ones that are allegedly NOT antiquated and are not using outdated technology? But somehow still cannot function in a core?
History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically better than anything on the market, your best route for success is
Thought it went build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door, etc etc etc.
to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the technical advances that you can provide and is willing to pay for those technical advances. I don't think that describes the larger Internet provider networks.
How would you know this? Historically, the cutting edge technology has always gone into the large cores first because they are the ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of capacity, power, and routing. /vijay
--- vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com> wrote:
How would you know this? Historically, the cutting edge technology has always gone into the large cores first because they are the ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of capacity, power, and routing.
/vijay
I'm not sure that I'd agree with that statement: most of the large providers with whom I'm familiar tend to be relatively conservative with regard to new technology deployments, for a couple of reasons: 1) their backbones currently "work" - changing them into something which may or may not "work better" is a non-trivial operation, and risks the network. 2) they have an installed base of customers who are living with existing functionality - this goes back to reason 1 - unless there is money to be made, nobody wants to deploy anything. 3) It makes more sense to deploy a new box at the edge, and eventually permit it to migrate to the core after it's been thoroughly proven - the IP model has features living on the edges of the network, while capacity lives in the core. If you have 3 high-cap boxes in the core, it's probably easier to add a fourth than it is to rip the three out and replace them with two higher-cap boxes. 4) existing management infrastructure permits the management of existing boxes - it's easier to deploy an all-new network than it is to upgrade from one technology/platform to another. -David Barak -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:05:03AM -0800, David Barak wrote:
--- vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com> wrote:
How would you know this? Historically, the cutting edge technology has always gone into the large cores first because they are the ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of capacity, power, and routing.
/vijay
I'm not sure that I'd agree with that statement: most of the large providers with whom I'm familiar tend to be relatively conservative with regard to new technology deployments, for a couple of reasons:
1) their backbones currently "work" - changing them into something which may or may not "work better" is a non-trivial operation, and risks the network.
This is perhaps current. Check back to see large deployments GSR - sprint/UUNEt GRF - uunet Juniper - UUNET/CWUSA In all of the above cases, those were the large isps that forced development of the boxes. Most of the smaller "cutting edge" networks are still running 7513s. GSR was invented because the 7513s were running out of PPS. CEF was designed to support offloading the RP.
2) they have an installed base of customers who are living with existing functionality - this goes back to reason 1 - unless there is money to be made, nobody wants to deploy anything.
3) It makes more sense to deploy a new box at the edge, and eventually permit it to migrate to the core after it's been thoroughly proven - the IP model has features living on the edges of the network, while capacity lives in the core. If you have 3 high-cap boxes in the core, it's probably easier to add a fourth than it is to rip the three out and replace them with two higher-cap boxes.
The core has expanded to the edge, not the other way around. The aggregate backplane bandwidth requirements tend to drive core box evolution first while the edge box normally has to deal with high touch features and port multiplexing. These of course are becoming more and more specialized over time.
4) existing management infrastructure permits the management of existing boxes - it's easier to deploy an all-new network than it is to upgrade from one technology/platform to another.
Only if you are willing to write off your entire capital investment. No one is willing to do that today.
-David Barak -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant
/vijay
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
1) their backbones currently "work" - changing them into something which may or may not "work better" is a non-trivial operation, and risks the network.
i would disagree. their backbone tend to reach scaling problems, hence the need for bleeding/leading edge technologies. that's been my experience in three past-large networks.
This is perhaps current. Check back to see large deployments GSR - sprint/UUNEt GRF - uunet Juniper - UUNET/CWUSA
indeed, and going back even further is-is, 7000 and the original SSE - mci/sprint vip and netflow - genuity (the original)/probably many others -b
vijay gill wrote:
CEF was designed to support offloading the RP.
Not really. There existed distributed fastswitching before DCEF came along. It might still exist. CEF was developed to address the issue of route cache insertion and purging. The unneccessarily painful 60 second interval new destination stall was widely documented before CEF got widespread use. The "fast switching" approach was also particularly painful when DDOS attacks occurred. Pete
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:32:07PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
along. It might still exist. CEF was developed to address the issue of route cache insertion and purging. The unneccessarily painful 60 second interval new destination stall was widely documented before CEF got widespread use. The "fast switching" approach was also particularly painful when DDOS attacks occurred.
Thanks for the correction. I clearly was not paying enough attention when composing. /vijay
--- vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com> wrote:
In all of the above cases, those were the large isps that forced development of the boxes. Most of the smaller "cutting edge" networks are still running 7513s.
Hmm - what I was getting at was that the big ISPs for the most part still have a whole lot of 7513s running around (figuratively), while if I were building a new network from the ground up, I'd be unlikely to use them.
GSR was invented because the 7513s were running out of PPS. CEF was designed to support offloading the RP.
2) they have an installed base of customers who are living with existing functionality - this goes back to reason 1 - unless there is money to be made, nobody wants to deploy anything.
3) It makes more sense to deploy a new box at the edge, and eventually permit it to migrate to the core after it's been thoroughly proven - the IP model has features living on the edges of the network, while capacity lives in the core. If you have 3 high-cap boxes in the core, it's probably easier to add a fourth than it is to rip the three out and replace them with two higher-cap boxes.
The core has expanded to the edge, not the other way around. The aggregate backplane bandwidth requirements tend to drive core box evolution first while the edge box normally has to deal with high touch features and port multiplexing. These of course are becoming more and more specialized over time.
I agree, from a capacity perspective: the GSR began life as a core router because it supported big pipes. It's only recently that it's had anywhere near the number of features which the 7500 has (and there are still a whole lot of specialized features which it doesn't have). From a feature deployment approach, new boxes come in at the edge (think of the deployment of the 7500 itself: it was an IP front-end for ATM networks)
4) existing management infrastructure permits the management of existing boxes - it's easier to deploy an all-new network than it is to upgrade from one technology/platform to another.
Only if you are willing to write off your entire capital investment. No one is willing to do that today.
That is EXACTLY my point: as new companies are unwilling to write off an investment, they MUST keep supporting the old stuff. once they're supporting the old stuff of vendor X, that provides an incentive to get more new stuff from vendor X, if the management platform is the same. For instance, if I've got a Marconi ATM network, I'm unlikely to buy new Cisco ATM gear, unless I'm either building a parallel network, or am looking for an edge front-end to offer new features. However, if I were building a new ATM network today, I would do a bake-off between the vendors and see which one met my needs best. -David Barak -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant- ===== David Barak -fully RFC 1925 compliant- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically better than anything on the market, your best route for success is to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the technical advances that you can provide and is willing to pay for those technical advances. I don't think that describes the larger Internet provider networks.
and this has been so well shown by the blazing successes of bay networks, avici, what-its-name that burst into flames in everyone's labs, ... watch out for flying pigs randy
and this has been so well shown by the blazing successes of bay networks, avici, what-its-name that burst into flames in everyone's labs, ...
That's a very good point. Building a router that works (at least learning from J's example) is hiring away the most important talent from your competition. Though, it could also be said that the companies that hired that same talent away from J have not met the same success, yet. Deepak
participants (8)
-
Brett Watson -
David Barak -
Deepak Jain -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Petri Helenius -
Randy Bush -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
vijay gill