RE: Cisco and the tobacco industry
QUOTE From: Ivan Groenewald [mailto:ivang@xtrahost.co.uk] IMHO IOS should be completely modular. ie SNMP/QOS/BGP etc should be a loadable module etc. In the event of you patching a service specific bug, you'd only upload the new modules and insmod them. I'd be very happy if the Cisco router fairy would write and backport such an IOS. That should end this idiotic router rebooting nonsense that the internet is plagued with, for the most part. /QUOTE If I remember correctly, This Exactly where Cisco has said they are going... With the IOS XR Just as the beginning.. Does anyone else remember this? Jim
Hi Jim, If I remember correctly there was some press hype about the idea of modularising IOS just about a year ago, which inevitably culminated IOS XR for carrier products. iirc there wasn't any talk of backports or deployments for non carrier equipment. ( I stand to be corrected of course ) The 12000 series got XR'd and was then renamed to the XR12000. That at least suggests that Cisco's idea could be that their current range of switches/routers could be upgraded to XR instead of buying "new range" equipment. I surely hope this turns out to be the policy on all Cisco ranges at the end of the day. cheers, ivan Jim McBurnett wrote:
QUOTE From: Ivan Groenewald [mailto:ivang@xtrahost.co.uk]
IMHO IOS should be completely modular. ie SNMP/QOS/BGP etc should be a loadable module etc. In the event of you patching a service specific bug, you'd only upload the new modules and insmod them. I'd be very happy if the Cisco router fairy would write and backport such an IOS. That should end this idiotic router rebooting nonsense that the internet is plagued with, for the most part. /QUOTE
If I remember correctly, This Exactly where Cisco has said they are going...
With the IOS XR Just as the beginning..
Does anyone else remember this?
Jim
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Jim McBurnett wrote:
If I remember correctly, This Exactly where Cisco has said they are going...
With the IOS XR Just as the beginning..
Does anyone else remember this?
On a different, older tangent ... coming from my possibly (probably) flawed memories: A looong time ago ... back in 1996-97 or so ... A cisco rep promised a smallish VAR I onced worked for that a new code base was being developed alongside 11.x and that it would likely become the Next Generation IOS someday if it "worked out". It was supposed to be a complete ground up re-write in an OO language and it would have the ability to link new modules or shared objects in at run time, and it would unify the existing router (25xx / 4[57]xx / 75xx) family with the Grand Junction acquisition - the CAT5K switch family into one code tree and one IOS to run them all. Instead we saw a flurry of new hardware (26xx, 16xx, 72xx, 36xx) which seemed to be a little more buggy than the older hardware especially when comparing the early 26xx and 36xx releases to the 4[57]xx routers. I remember having some strange issues with early 26xx routers - like the t1 wics wedging, the ip route cache getting corrupt, and 36xx routers refusing to recognize NMs when you swapped them into new slots or added new NMs. I always wondered exactly what those routers were running - was it some of the "NG" code backported or just normal bugs you expect when you are using all new chips, flash, and cpus (probably the latter) ? Anyway, I asked the cisco rep why they didn't just port *bsd or linux and use that and he said there were some "smart people that had already considered that and ruled it out as a bad idea." Wonder if cisco regrets this (I dont have any idea, I'm just wondering aloud). Would cisco have been smarter to already be running, say OpenBSD as its kernel and then its IOS services as daemons ? Might have opened up licensing problems for them that would have been a huge headache too. Is cisco the only major router/switch vendor running a home grown (i.e. not commercial rtos or *bsd / linux based derivative) for its core OS ? Do folks that control purchasing decisions care whether their selected vendors use a general purpose or proprietary OS when they are evaluating products ? I know that personally I dont like to buy gear that uses Microsoft win2(x) or winCE as its host (whether its a pbx, firewall, router - remember MS Steelhead?, etc). But thats just me ... Do people stop to think about what is really inside their router or network appliance when they buy it or do they only care what the *printed* manual says can be done with their shiny new box ? (Dislaimer - I like cisco gear a *lot* and I guess I am one that always considered IOS pretty secure though I do always put interface and vty acls for limiting access to the control plane when permitted by the end customer). -jon
That's why we have Juniper Router in the market. I guess somebody who wants to use *BSD kernel for baseline of Router Operating system moves to setup new company, and it became Juniper. Juniper JuNOS uses FreeBSD as kernel. Hyun C. Jon Larsen wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Jim McBurnett wrote:
If I remember correctly, This Exactly where Cisco has said they are going...
With the IOS XR Just as the beginning..
Does anyone else remember this?
On a different, older tangent ... coming from my possibly (probably) flawed memories:
A looong time ago ... back in 1996-97 or so ...
A cisco rep promised a smallish VAR I onced worked for that a new code base was being developed alongside 11.x and that it would likely become the Next Generation IOS someday if it "worked out".
It was supposed to be a complete ground up re-write in an OO language and it would have the ability to link new modules or shared objects in at run time, and it would unify the existing router (25xx / 4[57]xx / 75xx) family with the Grand Junction acquisition - the CAT5K switch family into one code tree and one IOS to run them all.
Instead we saw a flurry of new hardware (26xx, 16xx, 72xx, 36xx) which seemed to be a little more buggy than the older hardware especially when comparing the early 26xx and 36xx releases to the 4[57]xx routers.
I remember having some strange issues with early 26xx routers - like the t1 wics wedging, the ip route cache getting corrupt, and 36xx routers refusing to recognize NMs when you swapped them into new slots or added new NMs. I always wondered exactly what those routers were running - was it some of the "NG" code backported or just normal bugs you expect when you are using all new chips, flash, and cpus (probably the latter) ?
Anyway, I asked the cisco rep why they didn't just port *bsd or linux and use that and he said there were some "smart people that had already considered that and ruled it out as a bad idea."
Wonder if cisco regrets this (I dont have any idea, I'm just wondering aloud). Would cisco have been smarter to already be running, say OpenBSD as its kernel and then its IOS services as daemons ? Might have opened up licensing problems for them that would have been a huge headache too.
Is cisco the only major router/switch vendor running a home grown (i.e. not commercial rtos or *bsd / linux based derivative) for its core OS ?
Do folks that control purchasing decisions care whether their selected vendors use a general purpose or proprietary OS when they are evaluating products ?
I know that personally I dont like to buy gear that uses Microsoft win2(x) or winCE as its host (whether its a pbx, firewall, router - remember MS Steelhead?, etc). But thats just me ... Do people stop to think about what is really inside their router or network appliance when they buy it or do they only care what the *printed* manual says can be done with their shiny new box ?
(Dislaimer - I like cisco gear a *lot* and I guess I am one that always considered IOS pretty secure though I do always put interface and vty acls for limiting access to the control plane when permitted by the end customer).
-jon
C. Jon Larsen wrote:
It was supposed to be a complete ground up re-write in an OO language and it would have the ability to link new modules or shared objects in at run time, and it would unify the existing router (25xx / 4[57]xx / 75xx) family with the Grand Junction acquisition - the CAT5K switch family into one code tree and one IOS to run them all.
CatOS and cat5k came from Crescendo acquisition. Pete
participants (5)
-
C. Jon Larsen -
Hyunseog Ryu -
Ivan Groenewald -
Jim McBurnett -
Petri Helenius