Re: [nanog]software routers
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Koji Hino wrote:
They have quite fancier stuff inside, actually, from a technology point of view. Your run-of-the-mill Pentium IV requires a lot more advanced technology for design and manufacturing than the "platform FPGA" I referred to. The enormous design costs for those marvels of engineering are only bearable because of high volume.
If you call it software router, then all "network processor based router" should also be called software router, right?
"Software router" in my book is something which relies on programmable general-purpose devices for implementing packet routing functions. Network processors do not qualify (though they're nice, when they are actually available, which is not often - because chip vendors tend to drop niche products pronto when in a bind). One thing I learned well is to keep exotic stuff out of designs, because it never seems to be available w/o high-volume commitments, and even then tends to come a year later and full of "design features". --vadim
Curious to see how many saw the worm 2002 traffic change to UDP port 4156 at about 5PM Sat. -- sig=$header
by DDoS, are you talking about actual attack traffic, or just traffic from other infected hosts, to your 3, on udp port 4156? I was of the understanding that the 4156 traffic is just "bot speak" between the infected hosts, and not actual attack traffic? Regards --Rob
participants (4)
-
fingers
-
jnull
-
Mike Harrison
-
Vadim Antonov