On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 19:29 -0700, Mike wrote: > Yeah, that's what the brochure says anyways, I have been in the ISP business since early 1993. I have used a LOT of Cisco gear in the past 17 years. I am fully aware of it's functionality and it limits. > but I don't know of > many highly scaled networks using 'mikrotic' It's "MikroTik", by the way. Because you don't know about them makes it true that they don't exist? I help to manage one network that covers the entire state of Wisconsin that uses MikroTik. Is that "highly scaled" in your estimation? > and some of the reasons > come down to management, software stability and a readily available pool > of knowledgeable admins ready to build the next google with it. The world IS changing. Linux is moving into places that we never suspected it would go. I am not suggesting that Cisco will go away because of it. I am simply suggesting that your contention that the only "real" option is Cisco or Juniper is very short-sighted. Also, your statement that there is more functionality in a Cisco is just dead wrong. There is, perhaps, more functionality is SOME Ciscos, but not in a single unit. > However, that sleep comes > with the price of having to be a linux guru in order to do most network > config operations, And this is different from Cisco how? While it's true that there is a lot of support out there for Cisco, it is, in my experience, even MORE true that there is good support for Linux network configurations. > and in the 8 years I have been eating my own dog food > and running in my network now, I've not encountered many who I could > successfully pass off network admin duties too for these boxes (quagga, > iproute2, ebtables, iptables for instance) and centralized management > and configuration control is non-existent. Are you suggesting that you would do that if you used Cisco? This seems like a pretty isolated bit of anecdotal evidence when you talk about "highly scaled" networks in the first sentence. > These commercial systems you scoff at No "scoffing" here. I merely suggested that Cisco/Juniper were not the ONLY choices. Not sure where you get the "scoffing" out of that. > also support advanced and important features such as online > insertion/removal - which lets you take a card like a gigE switch > module, or a fiber/sonet interface, or a ds3, and just plug it in and > immediately without a reboot or driver searching/updating/missing dance, > start working. Another important difference is that these commercial > units are NOT hosts and don't have silly host/desktop type stuff going > on within them, like periodic flash writes, file systems filling with > junk that causes system hangs, or hundeds of other possible reasons and > causes that create 'system down' on host type machines that DON'T affect > the commercial boxes, and contribute (in theory anyways) to the > continued prospect of very long uptimes and reliable operation. This is in some respects true. Many of those things you point out certainly make the Cisco worth a look. I mean, if the network is moving data that cannot handle a few microseconds of downtime for VRRP or whatever failover solution you have in place to correct a problem, then I'm with you. Obviously, you cannot easily do this with the OC3, but it is not impossible to create very fast failover. If you recall, THAT was the interface we were discussing. With those interfaces, plugging in the module is only part of the process. The circuit will still take time to come up, whether you reboot the box or not. > basic hardware features like dual and triple redundant power supplies, > good fans and overall rugged design that further contribute to long > lives (again in theory), that PC/x86 and other COTS SBC type hardware > does not have. These features are available at a price. I have one X86 system that is running with dual power supplies right now. I can't imagine a scenario where I would need 3. Perhaps that's just my limited experience... > So in summary, for small jobs, yeah you're right, but once your jobs > aren't small anymore and you need more of these features or business > continuity becomes really critical, these commercial solutions are far > more likely to take you there today. There are places where I'd use Cisco. For a switching fabric, Cisco is certainly a very strong contender. I have used Cisco switches in numerous places with very good success. For the routing, I just don't see the need. I'm not trying to convince you to switch your network (or even your opinion). I am merely correcting an inaccurate statement on your part regarding functionality comparisons between Cisco and Linux based routers. -- ******************************************************************** * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * ********************************************************************