Dear all Greetings I'm wondering why the software based router is not preferable in business even if they have high featured Processers, and high capcity of memory. What is the main deferent between Appliance router and Software based routers? thank you all in adavance. -- Tarig Y. Adam _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
Tarig Yassin wrote:
What is the main deferent between Appliance router and Software based routers?
I believe the main difference is the ability to handle features at line rate speeds. The more interfaces/speed + CoS/ACL, the harder it is for a software based router to keep up. Jack
On Jul 25, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Tarig Yassin wrote:
What is the main deferent between Appliance router and Software based routers?
I believe the main difference is the ability to handle features at line rate speeds. The more interfaces/speed + CoS/ACL, the harder it is for a software based router to keep up.
Jack
Most "Appliances" are small(er) software-based routers. Owen
The official answer: commodity hardware doesn't handle all the features needed at "line rate". The (more often than not) unofficial answer: using a custom platform raises the entry barrier for cloning/abuse/etc. It's a bit hard to run your appliance MIPS software on an off-the-shelf PC; but it (used) to be possible to run PIX software on a PC (and in a VM too, IIRC.) Fun times, Adrian On Sun, Jul 25, 2010, Tarig Yassin wrote:
Dear all
Greetings
I'm wondering why the software based router is not preferable in business even if they have high featured Processers, and high capcity of memory.
What is the main deferent between Appliance router and Software based routers?
thank you all in adavance.
-- Tarig Y. Adam
_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-- - Xenion - http://www.xenion.com.au/ - VPS Hosting - Commercial Squid Support - - $24/pm+GST entry-level VPSes w/ capped bandwidth charges available in WA -
The (more often than not) unofficial answer: using a custom platform raises the entry barrier for cloning/abuse/etc. It's a bit hard to run your appliance MIPS software on an off-the-shelf PC; but it (used) to be possible to run PIX software on a PC (and in a VM too, IIRC.)
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Le 4 août 2010 à 15:14, Mirko Maffioli a écrit :
2010/7/25 Laurens Vets <laurens@daemon.be>:
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Cisco ASA under VMware?? :|
CiscoASA is based on x86, there is no reasons you cannot run this into VMWare or Xen... Xavier
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Le 4 août 2010 à 15:14, Mirko Maffioli a écrit :
2010/7/25 Laurens Vets <laurens@daemon.be>:
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Cisco ASA under VMware?? :|
CiscoASA is based on x86, there is no reasons you cannot run this into VMWare or Xen...
If that were the only qualification, PIX builds for the 515s would run under VMWare or XEN as well. Maybe they do, but I've never seen it.
I assume the ASA's don't run natively on VMware or Xen, I assume you have to use something like GNS3. I think that would be fine for testing, but in real world production running an ASA on GNS3 under an another OS seems like a bad idea. I hope Cisco will come out with Virtual Appliances for some of their products like they did for the Nexus 1000V. -Mike -----Original Message----- From: Daryl G. Jurbala [mailto:daryl@introspect.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:54 AM To: Xavier Beaudouin Cc: nanog Subject: Re: Appliance Vs Software based routers On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Le 4 août 2010 à 15:14, Mirko Maffioli a écrit :
2010/7/25 Laurens Vets <laurens@daemon.be>:
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Cisco ASA under VMware?? :|
CiscoASA is based on x86, there is no reasons you cannot run this into VMWare or Xen...
If that were the only qualification, PIX builds for the 515s would run under VMWare or XEN as well. Maybe they do, but I've never seen it.
GNS is just a front end for dynamips/qemu. ASA will run under qemu without the use of extra wrappers/tools. it will run natively under vmware too. ASA is basically an application running above a linux kernel. I forget what the internal name is, lisa or similar… -g On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Mike Walter wrote:
I assume the ASA's don't run natively on VMware or Xen, I assume you have to use something like GNS3. I think that would be fine for testing, but in real world production running an ASA on GNS3 under an another OS seems like a bad idea. I hope Cisco will come out with Virtual Appliances for some of their products like they did for the Nexus 1000V.
-Mike
-----Original Message----- From: Daryl G. Jurbala [mailto:daryl@introspect.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 10:54 AM To: Xavier Beaudouin Cc: nanog Subject: Re: Appliance Vs Software based routers
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Le 4 août 2010 à 15:14, Mirko Maffioli a écrit :
2010/7/25 Laurens Vets <laurens@daemon.be>:
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Cisco ASA under VMware?? :|
CiscoASA is based on x86, there is no reasons you cannot run this into VMWare or Xen...
If that were the only qualification, PIX builds for the 515s would run under VMWare or XEN as well. Maybe they do, but I've never seen it.
it works, i see folks creating networks of hosts under ESXi protected by an ASA instance.. not for production. I'm sure its not legal but Cisco doesn't seem to have a strong stand on it, I'd think as long as you are using it for educational use and not commercial, they may not care a whole bunch. What you can not do while emulating ASA is use encryption, no VPNs or otherwise. this is due to the fact the ASA units use hardware encryption, when the OS makes calls to the controller, it isn't there.. -g On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Le 4 août 2010 à 15:14, Mirko Maffioli a écrit :
2010/7/25 Laurens Vets <laurens@daemon.be>:
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Cisco ASA under VMware?? :|
CiscoASA is based on x86, there is no reasons you cannot run this into VMWare or Xen...
Xavier
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:06:22 am Greg Whynott wrote:
it works, i see folks creating networks of hosts under ESXi protected by an ASA instance.. not for production. I'm sure its not legal but Cisco doesn't seem to have a strong stand on it, I'd think as long as you are using it for educational use and not commercial, they may not care a whole bunch.
Much like Juniper's stance on Olive, perhaps?
What you can not do while emulating ASA is use encryption, no VPNs or otherwise. this is due to the fact the ASA units use hardware encryption, when the OS makes calls to the controller, it isn't there..
ASA, yes, but older PIX doesn't; google for 'frankenpix' to see more. Cisco used lots of embedded x86 where it made sense to do so (lots of places: LocalDirector, Content/Cache Engines, PIX, SwitchProbe, IPTV, MCS, and others).
On 8/4/2010 9:53 AM, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Le 4 août 2010 à 15:14, Mirko Maffioli a écrit :
2010/7/25 Laurens Vets<laurens@daemon.be>:
Cisco PIX: no, Cisco ASA: yes. It even runs under VMware... It's however very hackish... :)
Cisco ASA under VMware?? :|
CiscoASA is based on x86, there is no reasons you cannot run this into VMWare or Xen...
Xavier
As long as VMWare's hardware (NIC , storage, etc.) line up with Cisco's. You still have to have drivers. --Curtis
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:20:43 +0300, Tarig Yassin said:
I'm wondering why the software based router is not preferable in business
Sorry, but you've gone wrong already. You can't ask "why something is true" until you first establish that the something is in fact true. There are *plenty* of businesses where a software based router is quite preferable due to its lower cost and increased flexibility. Proof: How many "software-based routers" (whatever that really means) has Cisco sold that are making their shops very happy?
I'm wondering why the software based router is not preferable in business even if they have high featured Processers, and high capcity of memory.
It may be helpful before proceeding if you provide some examples of each, so we can understand your definition of a 'appliance' vs 'software router'. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
On 7/25/2010 9:07 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm wondering why the software based router is not preferable in business even if they have high featured Processers, and high capcity of memory. It may be helpful before proceeding if you provide some examples of each, so we can understand your definition of a 'appliance' vs 'software router'.
Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
They are all software based routers... It really shouldn't matter whether an Appliance Application (i.e. some routing program is running on a minimal runtime environment ) or a routing program is running as part of an OS or as an Application on an OS. It is all Software until it becomes silicon. The only issue is how far off the metal you are and its not hardware based routing really until there is no OS, no development environment, no software involved right? Todd
They are all software based routers... It really shouldn't matter whether an Appliance Application (i.e. some routing program is running on a minimal runtime environment ) or a routing program is running as part of an OS or as an Application on an OS. It is all Software until it becomes silicon.
The only issue is how far off the metal you are and its not hardware based routing really until there is no OS, no development environment, no software involved right?
As has been pointed out, hardware/appliance/software can be a highly semantic issue, at least for some people. OP seemed like a specific question couched in vague terms - I'd rather have a discussion about what OP was trying to accomplish than rehash "Vyatta as a BRAS". What's specifically important is the distinction between an 'appliance' platform (like a MIPS or Cisco routing switch), and what I presume OP infers a 'software' platform to be (an x86 box running iptables or Quagga). In that case, I would tell OP that the PCI/PCI-e bus architecture isn't built to handle the rampant interrupts (or polling) that a real routing/switching workload generates. The bus controller is built/sized to pump data to and from a video card/IO controller/etc, not to ship Ethernet packets up to the CPU and back out again in 8 different directions. On the other hand, moving packets between 8 interfaces is exactly what a routing switch like a Cisco 3750 is built to do. So, I wanted to retrieve the values of 'software router' and 'appliance' from OP to see if that's where he was going. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Tarig Yassin <tariq198487@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm wondering why the software based router is not preferable in business even if they have high featured Processers, and high capcity of memory.
What is the main deferent between Appliance router and Software based routers?
http://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro.html Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
participants (16)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Curtis Maurand -
Daryl G. Jurbala -
Greg Whynott -
Jack Bates -
Lamar Owen -
Laurens Vets -
Mike Walter -
Mirko Maffioli -
Nathan Eisenberg -
Owen DeLong -
Tarig Yassin -
todd glassey -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin -
Xavier Beaudouin