real hardware router VS linux router
Hi All Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router? Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router? eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp Thank you for your information
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation. In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than non-moving parts. Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in your cost-benefit analysis. /Ryan Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
- -- Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX Office: 217-265-5192 CITES - Network Engineering Cell: 630-363-0365 2130 Digital Computer Lab Fax: 217-244-7089 1304 W. Springfield email: hardenrm@illinois.edu Urbana, IL 61801 University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign University of Illinois - ICCN -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmdbpcACgkQtuPckBBbXboREgCguTikt2UwEIRHNfoNzASreLD/ YLcAoKdr/Gbw8CQuY9dTitvGQdD3+H0s =bsHP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
Steve
I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture' that DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical force to keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off most devices with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being accidentally bumped / disconnected. Secondly, there are still many many PC Architecture boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB. '
On 2/19/09, mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
Steve
I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture' that DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical force to keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off most devices with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being accidentally bumped / disconnected. Secondly, there are still many many PC Architecture boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB.
I've used a hot glue gun to glue a USB key to the device/server/etc in question. Works very well against being bumped or accidentally dislodged. -brandon -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: brandon.galbraith@gmail.com
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but what about solid state hard drives? Think they are in the high GB capacity now and solves the problem of no moving parts? Although I'm all for hardware based devices, we recently been to Cisco to see the new Cisco ASR1000 switch uses an underlying Linux kernel :o Stephen Bailey - Senior Lead Systems Engineer Network Operations - ISP & DSL FUJITSU Fujitsu Services Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free. -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:brandon.galbraith@gmail.com] Sent: 20 February 2009 00:02 To: mike Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: real hardware router VS linux router On 2/19/09, mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast
real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving
part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
Steve
I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture'
as a pieces that
DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical force to keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off most devices with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being accidentally bumped / disconnected. Secondly, there are still many many PC Architecture boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB.
I've used a hot glue gun to glue a USB key to the device/server/etc in question. Works very well against being bumped or accidentally dislodged. -brandon -- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: brandon.galbraith@gmail.com
On 20/02/2009, at 9:51 PM, Bailey Stephen wrote:
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but what about solid state hard drives? Think they are in the high GB capacity now and solves the problem of no moving parts?
Regular CF works fine. CF's interface is ATA, so you can drop it in to a PATA hole with a very simple adapter. There are plenty of "network appliance" boxes that are designed for this sort of thing with lots of network holes mounted on the front and so on. Lots of them have CF card slots on the front as well, just like many router vendors do. -- Nathan Ward
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
Steve
I am sorry, but this is wrong. A USB Key is another 'PC Architecture' that DOES NOT WORK for network devices. There is NO positive mechanical force to keep that thing inserted, and the way a USB Key would hang off most devices with a USB port, would put it at very high risk for being accidentally bumped / disconnected.
It's already been suggested that a glue gun would be useful here, especially if you have a thumbnail sized USB drive.
Secondly, there are still many many PC Architecture boxen that still do not boot correctly from USB.
This is true, but when you are buying hardware specifically for it's ability to boot off USB then it's assumed that the purchaser would do their research, so something of a moot point. B
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
Not if you boot directly from USB key into memory with no disk drive.
You probably don't want a USB key. Too easy to knock off, etc. Though for a small enough USB key, like the Kingston microSD-to-USB adapters (like FCR-MRR+SDC) ... that'd probably be okay. What we did for a few applications... FreeBSD 7.1R on a 4GB compact flash, the CF plugged into a CF-to-IDE converter. In our case we case modded a few Intel ISP 1100 1U servers to allow the CF to be inserted from the front. Great for VPN service (either server or client), load balancers, traffic shapers, or smallish routers. ad0: 3847MB <CF CARD 4GB 20071116> at ata0-master PIO4 Designed to run with root as read-only-usually, with memory filesystems for /var and /tmp (logging to a remote syslog server and serial console seem to address most of the obvious complaints). This only partially addresses the moving parts concerns, since the system is still dependent on fans. However, with a passive heatsink, at least the loss of a single fan isn't critical. And, geez, most of my switch gear has fans, so at what point do we draw the line? We had a 3Com SuperStack switch (~10 years old) that we didn't identify as the source of a nasty growly sound for probably half a decade. :-) There have been numerous discussions about PC routers on NANOG and other lists in the past. Short form is, if you know what you're doing and the tradeoffs and benefits are acceptable, it can really rock. Otherwise, proceed with caution and do lots of reading. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Ryan Harden wrote:
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than non-moving parts.
It's quite possible to build Linux-based devices with few or no moving parts. Small embedded boards, and flash drives, are common and cheap; and for low-load situations it's possible to build a passively-cooled (i.e. no fans, so zero moving parts) system. Higher-performance setups with a few moving parts (mainly fans) are still possible, but at some point you have to balance the time and effort of R&D and performance-tuning your system. If you save a few thousand dollars on hardware, but spend a few days tweaking everything, you may not come out ahead after all. At least two vendors (Imagestream and Mikrotik) offer complete packages based on Linux; the latter also sells the software separately, for installation on your own hardware, and both offer support if you need it. David Smith MVN.net
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think. -b -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Harden [mailto:hardenrm@uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:37 AM To: Deric Kwok Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: real hardware router VS linux router -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation. In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than non-moving parts. Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in your cost-benefit analysis. /Ryan Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
- -- Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX Office: 217-265-5192 CITES - Network Engineering Cell: 630-363-0365 2130 Digital Computer Lab Fax: 217-244-7089 1304 W. Springfield email: hardenrm@illinois.edu Urbana, IL 61801 University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign University of Illinois - ICCN -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmdbpcACgkQtuPckBBbXboREgCguTikt2UwEIRHNfoNzASreLD/ YLcAoKdr/Gbw8CQuY9dTitvGQdD3+H0s =bsHP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bill Blackford wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
It scales quite well, I'm sure, if you take about 12-16 servers, interconnect them at 256+ gigabit, build your own communication protocols between them. Hmmm. This is starting to sound like the Juniper layout prior to them having hardware. :) -Jack
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/ RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
I've asked this before and been told you can get PCI cards with multiple GigE ports, or even build specialized PCI cards that look like PICs. So I congratulated them on re-inventing Juniper. -- TTFN, patrick
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
I've asked this before and been told you can get PCI cards with multiple GigE ports, or even build specialized PCI cards that look like PICs.
So I congratulated them on re-inventing Juniper.
multiport network interfaces substantially predate the existence of asic based l3 forwarding. I can just barely remember what a router looked like in 1991, but our compaq and sun pedestal servers certainly had them. we have variously and in use today as standardized formfactors in embedded network optimized pc platforms. cpci (6u eurocard) - which is neither compact nor pci but I digress pmc xmc atca amc standard pci-e mini-pci-e when when consider that a gen2.0 8x pci-e point-to-point link can carry ~32Gbits/s symmetric the building blocks are certainly there for multiport interfaces and 4xge or 2x10Gbe per slot interfaces are relatively de riguer in pc based filewall/ips/network appliance platforms...
this plattform can handle about 100.000pps and 400mbit 1500byte packets with freebsd http://lannerinc.com/Network_Application_Platforms/x86_Network_Appliance/1U_... hardware: 4x pci 32bit, 33mhz intel gbit 1gb cf-card 1gb ram with this hardware even more pps should be possible: http://www.axiomtek.de/network_appliances/network_appliances/smb_network_sec... hardware: 7x pcie (1lane each) connected network add freebsd-net mailinglist people achieved nearly 1.000.000pps with servers (hp-servers) I suggest to use freebsd os if quagga is the routing daemon as quagga runs more stable than on linux. I have currently 300days uptime at my border routers (2x FW-7550), last week I had a peak with 230mbit's; no problem to handle. Kind regards, ingo flaschberger
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
this plattform can handle about 100.000pps and 400mbit 1500byte packets with freebsd http://lannerinc.com/Network_Application_Platforms/x86_Network_Appliance/1U_...
hardware: 4x pci 32bit, 33mhz intel gbit 1gb cf-card 1gb ram
with this hardware even more pps should be possible: http://www.axiomtek.de/network_appliances/network_appliances/smb_network_sec...
hardware: 7x pcie (1lane each) connected network
A very quick test through a box much like the one in your latter link, running FBSD 7.1, Quagga, and many IPFW rules, to a machine that is not very busy: receiver% netstat -h -w 1 input (Total) output packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls 1 0 60 1 0 170 0 1 0 60 1 0 170 0 1 0 60 1 0 170 0 1 0 60 1 0 170 0 47K 0 28M 1 0 170 0 132K 0 77M 1 0 170 0 133K 0 78M 1 0 170 0 133K 0 78M 1 0 170 0 131K 0 77M 1 0 170 0 132K 0 77M 1 0 170 0 132K 0 78M 1 0 170 0 133K 0 78M 1 0 170 0 Steve
You know you're off track when.. What operational relevance does this conversation, or the similiar ones that came before it, have? Are there a bunch in production contributing to the degradation of the best route between me and this video of cute kittens I'm trying to watch? Did something of this breed cause some eastern europe bgp flappy flappy this week? I've got BGP and OSPF speaking Linux machines under my care, but I don't think everyone wants to hear about them unless they're out of control like the cast of Lord of the Flies set loose in a supermarket. Having carped, I'm obligated to offer a solution: The technical discussion is certainly interesting to a small subset of NANOG participants, I'm sure (I do find it interesting, I promise), but I'm thinking this conversation is better elsewhere, like a beer & gear, or might I recommend forming some kind of nanog-shoptalk sub list? Is there one like it? Something for discussing the network substrata and not the weather a few layers up? I'm aware of stuff like c-nsp/j-nsp, but the Linux router crowd has it's own niche and there's certainly a place for discussing them, I just don't think it's.. here. - billn
On Feb 19, 2009, at 12:30 PM, Bill Nash wrote:
Having carped, I'm obligated to offer a solution: The technical discussion is certainly interesting to a small subset of NANOG participants, I'm sure (I do find it interesting, I promise), but I'm thinking this conversation is better elsewhere, like a beer & gear, or might I recommend forming some kind of nanog- shoptalk sub list? Is there one like it? Something for discussing the network substrata and not the weather a few layers up? I'm aware of stuff like c-nsp/j-nsp, but the Linux router crowd has it's own niche and there's certainly a place for discussing them, I just don't think it's.. here.
- billn
I would be interested in a such a thing. I've tried approaching the Linux crowd for such information, but they seem more interested in writing patches to blink LEDs when Netfilter does something than talking about performance and scaling considerations. If anyone would like to drop me a line off-list to point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful. So far the most useful information I've found on the topic has been via this list. PS I'm talking specifically about Linux. The FreeBSD and OpenBSD crowd seem to have lists that provide this sort of thing already. -- bk
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009, Brian Keefer wrote:
If anyone would like to drop me a line off-list to point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful. So far the most useful information I've found on the topic has been via this list.
PS I'm talking specifically about Linux. The FreeBSD and OpenBSD crowd seem to have lists that provide this sort of thing already.
The people doing this commercially under Linux/FreeBSD, and have mods to do higher PPS in certain conditions, generally don't talk (much.) A few FreeBSD developers are pushing forward with higher PPS improvements. If this is inline with what you want, then I suggest talking to them and seeing how they can help. Migrating to a superior platform (where "superior" here is "does what I want better" isn't a -bad- idea. :) Adrian
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Bill Nash <billn@billn.net> wrote:
Having carped, I'm obligated to offer a solution: The technical discussion is certainly interesting to a small subset of NANOG participants, I'm sure (I do find it interesting, I promise), but I'm thinking this conversation is better elsewhere, like a beer & gear, or might I recommend forming some kind of nanog-shoptalk sub list? Is there one like it? Something for discussing the network substrata and not the weather a few layers up?
I wouldn't mind seeing a nanog-shoptalk list actually... I know according to the NANOG guidelines this thread is off topic: "The NANOG list has over 10,000 subscribers so it is very easy for a thread to have scores of posts while being off-topic and only of interest to only a small proportion of subscribers. Please consider before each post if your email will be of interest to the majority of members or might alternatively be emailed directly the people of interest or posted to another forum." (from the email everyone received) ...but I found this thread very interesting, and relevant to at least networking in general. I've had my eyes on Vyatta products in the past, for example, and seeing the smattering of experienced NANOG folks "chew the fat" about Linux routers is something I'm interested in, even if it has nothing specifically to do with really long BGP advertisements or getting to http://lolcats.com Just my .02 -- Eric http://nixwizard.net
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range? Thanks in advance.
Comcast has an Ethernet service? John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-- Steve King Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
Yes, they do. You can find more information here: http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues. Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel? I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account. A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer, Ryan Krenzischek On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check
Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
Ryan, It's always your equipment. You should know that none of their customers have any clue how to run a network and therefore should remove them immediately. Any customer who is not running Windows and not connected directly to the router is to blame for any problems. Jeff On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> wrote:
Yes, they do. You can find more information here:
http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx
Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues.
Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel?
I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account.
A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer,
Ryan Krenzischek
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check
Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.
Well that explains it all since we are a *BSD shop. Ryan On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:02:12 -0500 From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> To: Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Craptastic Service! (was: Re: comcast price check)
Ryan,
It's always your equipment. You should know that none of their customers have any clue how to run a network and therefore should remove them immediately. Any customer who is not running Windows and not connected directly to the router is to blame for any problems.
Jeff
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> wrote:
Yes, they do. You can find more information here:
http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx
Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues.
Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel?
I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account.
A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer,
Ryan Krenzischek
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check
Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
Ryan, Last I talked to Comcast running BSD meant you're a hacker. Jeff On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> wrote:
Well that explains it all since we are a *BSD shop.
Ryan
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:02:12 -0500 From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> To: Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Craptastic Service! (was: Re: comcast price check)
Ryan,
It's always your equipment. You should know that none of their customers have any clue how to run a network and therefore should remove them immediately. Any customer who is not running Windows and not connected directly to the router is to blame for any problems.
Jeff
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> wrote:
Yes, they do. You can find more information here:
http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx
Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues.
Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel?
I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account.
A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer,
Ryan Krenzischek
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check
Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.
Ouch! We have some unsatisfied customers... :-) I have had business class for 1.5 years now, and granted, there have been issues and I usually ask for tier 2 within a few minutes, but I am fairly satisfied. Speed just jumped to say 6-10Mbs down, 2+ up a couple of weeks ago and it works well for me. I pay ~$68.00 a month for 5 ips. dsl is not really an option here. Too far to the co. -- Steve On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Ryan,
Last I talked to Comcast running BSD meant you're a hacker.
Jeff
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> wrote:
Well that explains it all since we are a *BSD shop.
Ryan
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:02:12 -0500 From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> To: Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Craptastic Service! (was: Re: comcast price check)
Ryan,
It's always your equipment. You should know that none of their customers have any clue how to run a network and therefore should remove them immediately. Any customer who is not running Windows and not connected directly to the router is to blame for any problems.
Jeff
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Ryan A. Krenzischek <ryan@bbnx.net> wrote:
Yes, they do. You can find more information here:
http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx
Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues.
Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel?
I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account.
A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer,
Ryan Krenzischek
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check
Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.
Look for us at HostingCon 2009 in Washington, DC on August 10th - 12th at Booth #401.
I've been using their biz offering for the past 18 months and have had a very good experience, including same day fixes all three times I reported problems (no truck dispatch required). For $105/month I get excellent speed and routable IP's. A good deal from my perspective. Oh, and you might want to read those SLA's you get from AT&T or any other carrier. Typically, all they give you for not meeting the SLA is "credits" and you typically have to ask for them, in writing within 30 days to actually get them. - Paul - On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ryan A. Krenzischek wrote:
Yes, they do. You can find more information here:
http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx
Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues.
Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel?
I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account.
A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer,
Ryan Krenzischek
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
Back on the original topic of Comcast fiber. It is sold by region, shoot me an off-list email and I can put you in touch with someone at national who can at least point you in the correct direction. I must say that it appears their metroE services take a back seat to the coax services and thus I never purchased that service when looking into it. On the peering/transit side, the guys at national (AS7922) are really professional (albeit a bit overworked). Our peering link to them is awesome for getting rid of Comcast user complaints. :) John van Oppen Spectrum Networks LLC 206.973.8302 (Direct) 206.973.8300 (main office) -----Original Message----- From: Paul M. Moriarty [mailto:pmm@igtc.com] Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:03 AM To: Ryan A. Krenzischek Cc: NANOG list Subject: Comcast - No complaints! [was: Re: Craptastic Service! (was: Re:comcast price check)] I've been using their biz offering for the past 18 months and have had a very good experience, including same day fixes all three times I reported problems (no truck dispatch required). For $105/month I get excellent speed and routable IP's. A good deal from my perspective. Oh, and you might want to read those SLA's you get from AT&T or any other carrier. Typically, all they give you for not meeting the SLA is "credits" and you typically have to ask for them, in writing within 30 days to actually get them. - Paul - On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ryan A. Krenzischek wrote:
Yes, they do. You can find more information here:
http://business.comcast.com/ethernet/dedicated-internet.aspx
Although, I'm sufficiently disappointed with Comcast's Business Cable service. I have had them since 6-NOV-2008 and they took 4 months and 1 week to fix a cabling problem at the head-end for my business Internet. Apparently the head-end was wired wrong in regards to how power was supplied to it. I had nothing but dropped packets and latency (400-500 MS, sometimes 1200 MS) problems. I lost so much business. I tried multiple times to speak with a manager but they would only pick up their phone after I sat for 30 minutes with the phone, pressing the redial key and placed 60 calls to them. I had to call their corporate office and file a complaint. I am still having dropped packet issues.
Comcast support also had the nerve to say it was my equipment and that I should immediately disconnect everything. Remind me again how is it my problem with *MY* equipment when the modem takes 25 minutes to sync/lock on the upstream channel?
I would *highly* recommend a T1 or partial T3. While they are more expensive and highly reliable, AT&T or other major telcos will fix the problem within a reasonable SLA. Comcast does NOT have a SLA. It took 4 months to fix my problems on a business account.
A Very Unhappy Comcast Customer,
Ryan Krenzischek
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Steven King wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:45:48 -0500 From: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> To: John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: comcast price check Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
Paul M. Moriarty wrote:
Oh, and you might want to read those SLA's you get from AT&T or any other carrier. Typically, all they give you for not meeting the SLA is "credits" and you typically have to ask for them, in writing within 30 days to actually get them.
If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back? ~Seth
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Paul M. Moriarty wrote:
Oh, and you might want to read those SLA's you get from AT&T or any other carrier. Typically, all they give you for not meeting the SLA is "credits" and you typically have to ask for them, in writing within 30 days to actually get them.
If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back?
They can pay a penalty. Simply giving you your money back may not make you whole. Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back. In some lines of business (e.g. residential rental housing) we have laws to protect buyers (renters) that stipulate penalties when sellers (landlords) don't provide the services (livable housing) required by law, in addition to refund of the fee (rent) paid for the services. Giving you your money back when you didn't get the goods isn't really providing an SLA, it's simply not defrauding the customer. jc
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:26 PM, JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back?
They can pay a penalty. Simply giving you your money back may not make you whole. Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back. In some lines of business (e.g. residential rental housing) we have laws to protect buyers (renters) that stipulate penalties when sellers (landlords) don't provide the services (livable housing) required by law, in addition to refund of the fee (rent) paid for the services.
Giving you your money back when you didn't get the goods isn't really providing an SLA, it's simply not defrauding the customer.
That ain't gonna happen. The housing laws you mention are the exception, not the rule. Very, very, very few businesses have any liability for lack of performance other than the money you paid them. And some not even that. -- TTFN, patrick
Very true. You'll be hard pressed to find an IP/transit/dark fiber provider who is going to agree to be liable for anything except what you've paid in the event of an SLA violation. -brandon On 2/22/09, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:26 PM, JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back?
They can pay a penalty. Simply giving you your money back may not make you whole. Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back. In some lines of business (e.g. residential rental housing) we have laws to protect buyers (renters) that stipulate penalties when sellers (landlords) don't provide the services (livable housing) required by law, in addition to refund of the fee (rent) paid for the services.
Giving you your money back when you didn't get the goods isn't really providing an SLA, it's simply not defrauding the customer.
That ain't gonna happen.
The housing laws you mention are the exception, not the rule. Very, very, very few businesses have any liability for lack of performance other than the money you paid them. And some not even that.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Sent from my mobile device Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: brandon.galbraith@gmail.com
Just because no network provider today offers to do better than refund your money doesn't mean this is all they "can" do. Perhaps someday one of the networks will be confident enough about their services to offer a better SLA that includes paying a penalty when they fail to deliver what they promised. It would make a great marketing point - we are so confident in our services that our SLA is better than the Other Guys. Like the ads that promise to price match and give you 10% extra if you find a "lower price elsewhere". This marketing strategy would play well when talking to bean counters and suits. jc Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Very true. You'll be hard pressed to find an IP/transit/dark fiber provider who is going to agree to be liable for anything except what you've paid in the event of an SLA violation.
-brandon
On 2/22/09, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:26 PM, JC Dill wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back?
They can pay a penalty. Simply giving you your money back may not make you whole. Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back. In some lines of business (e.g. residential rental housing) we have laws to protect buyers (renters) that stipulate penalties when sellers (landlords) don't provide the services (livable housing) required by law, in addition to refund of the fee (rent) paid for the services.
Giving you your money back when you didn't get the goods isn't really providing an SLA, it's simply not defrauding the customer.
That ain't gonna happen.
The housing laws you mention are the exception, not the rule. Very, very, very few businesses have any liability for lack of performance other than the money you paid them. And some not even that.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 13:26, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back.
I'm curious, when traveling by car or by plane, do you often demand imposition of penalties for travel latency? -Jim P.
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 13:26, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back.
I'm curious, when traveling by car or by plane, do you often demand imposition of penalties for travel latency?
Airlines pay "penalties" when they bump passengers even if you get there eventually - just later than you expected. When I am bumped because the plane is overbooked, they don't just put me on the next flight they also compensate me for not putting me on the flight I had a reservation for. When I traveled from SFO to San Diego for Thanksgiving 2 years ago I was bumped both ways. I was compensated each time with a guaranteed seat on the next flight, a meal voucher, and a ticket voucher that I used to fly to the east coast last fall, and will be flying to the east coast again this fall on the second voucher. When traveling by car I have far more control over the proposed route, time-of-day for travel, planned or spontaneous stops, etc. In exchange for this control I am also responsible for the outcome of my own travel plans. jc
Notice you said voucher and not cash, which I'd consider the same as a network provider providing a credit and not cash. -brandon On 2/22/09, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 13:26, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back.
I'm curious, when traveling by car or by plane, do you often demand imposition of penalties for travel latency?
Airlines pay "penalties" when they bump passengers even if you get there eventually - just later than you expected.
When I am bumped because the plane is overbooked, they don't just put me on the next flight they also compensate me for not putting me on the flight I had a reservation for. When I traveled from SFO to San Diego for Thanksgiving 2 years ago I was bumped both ways. I was compensated each time with a guaranteed seat on the next flight, a meal voucher, and a ticket voucher that I used to fly to the east coast last fall, and will be flying to the east coast again this fall on the second voucher.
When traveling by car I have far more control over the proposed route, time-of-day for travel, planned or spontaneous stops, etc. In exchange for this control I am also responsible for the outcome of my own travel plans.
jc
-- Sent from my mobile device Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: brandon.galbraith@gmail.com
*Some* airlines pay penalties - not all. I was in Florida on business last summer and when I went to do "web checkin" I was told "call this number 1-800xxxxxx". When I did, they apologized and said they couldn't get me out of Florida for 2 additional days. Quite upset, I wanted to know what they were going to do to cover my additional hotel/food costs plus lost time. Their answer was "we'll honor the same seat pricing for the Sunday flight even though it's normally considerably higher"... oh gee, thanks! So for the additional $4-500 in additional expenses incurred I got "a deal" on their screwup. The worst part was that I booked that particular flight and chose my seat there was ZERO others booked on it as I booked it almost 9 months in advance. So more on topic, make sure the SLA is good and perhaps confirm via references that they back it up. SLA's are no good if they are not willing to "put their money where their mouth is".... ;) Paul -----Original Message----- From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill.lists@gmail.com] Sent: February 22, 2009 3:00 PM Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Comcast - No complaints! [was: Re: Craptastic Service! Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 13:26, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Many businesses could make out like a bandit if they don't have to pay a penalty when they don't perform, but just give you your money back.
I'm curious, when traveling by car or by plane, do you often demand imposition of penalties for travel latency?
Airlines pay "penalties" when they bump passengers even if you get there eventually - just later than you expected. When I am bumped because the plane is overbooked, they don't just put me on the next flight they also compensate me for not putting me on the flight I had a reservation for. When I traveled from SFO to San Diego for Thanksgiving 2 years ago I was bumped both ways. I was compensated each time with a guaranteed seat on the next flight, a meal voucher, and a ticket voucher that I used to fly to the east coast last fall, and will be flying to the east coast again this fall on the second voucher. When traveling by car I have far more control over the proposed route, time-of-day for travel, planned or spontaneous stops, etc. In exchange for this control I am also responsible for the outcome of my own travel plans. jc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Paul Stewart wrote:
*Some* airlines pay penalties - not all.
When you have a confirmed reservation, airlines in the US and EU are required to pay "delayed boarding compensation" when you are involuntarily bumped, unless the reason is something completely outside their control (such as the weather or when planes are ordered grounded as happened after 9/11), or they are flying smaller jets (special exceptions because of weight-and-balance safety rules). This is in addition to allowing you to use your ticket on the next available flight. If you elect to make alternate travel arrangements US airlines also have to refund your ticket, even when it's a "non-refundable" ticket. http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14/14-4.0.1.1.28.0.8.10.html http://www.itourist.com/members/tips/view.php?id=45 http://www.discountairfares.com/deniedbo.htm
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 16:37, JC Dill <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
When you have a confirmed reservation, airlines in the US and EU are required to pay "delayed boarding compensation" when you are involuntarily bumped, unless the reason is something completely outside their control (such as the weather or when planes are ordered grounded as happened after 9/11), or they are flying smaller jets (special exceptions because of weight-and-balance safety rules). This is in addition to allowing you to use your ticket on the next available flight. If you elect to make alternate travel arrangements US airlines also have to refund your ticket, even when it's a "non-refundable" ticket.
But that doesn't really equate to network traffic (IMHO). If your upstream has an outage, it is more akin to a delayed departure rather than an airline bump or flight cancellation. You reach your destination later than planned (latency) and you may have to take a different route, but your packet^Wbutt gets through. Neither of those situations involve cash compensation, or penalties paid, by major airlines. At most you might get a few loyalty points. Now if your upstream network provider disconnected you and/or was unable to route your packets to their final destination.... -Jim P.
Jim Popovitch wrote:
But that doesn't really equate to network traffic (IMHO).
No, it doesn't. I didn't make the analogy to airlines, I responded to the analogy made by someone else.
If your upstream has an outage, it is more akin to a delayed departure rather than an airline bump or flight cancellation. You reach your destination later than planned (latency) and you may have to take a different route, but your packet^Wbutt gets through. Neither of those situations involve cash compensation, or penalties paid, by major airlines. At most you might get a few loyalty points. When overbooking results in a passenger being bumped to a flight that departs 2 hours later, your packet^Wbutt gets through too, but you also get compensation for the delay. An argument could be made that extensive outage/network problems (longer than 2 hours?) are similar in duration/effect, and that similar compensation should be due.
I'm not saying that I expect this to happen, I'm just saying that there's plenty of precedent for other types of businesses compensating customers beyond merely giving refunds. jc
So the most constructive answer that I received related to this thread is that someone is using Comcast Ethernet services for $5.25/MB for a 500MB pipe. I wonder how much 10MB synchronous would cost? JC Dill wrote:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
But that doesn't really equate to network traffic (IMHO).
No, it doesn't. I didn't make the analogy to airlines, I responded to the analogy made by someone else.
If your upstream has an outage, it is more akin to a delayed departure rather than an airline bump or flight cancellation. You reach your destination later than planned (latency) and you may have to take a different route, but your packet^Wbutt gets through. Neither of those situations involve cash compensation, or penalties paid, by major airlines. At most you might get a few loyalty points. When overbooking results in a passenger being bumped to a flight that departs 2 hours later, your packet^Wbutt gets through too, but you also get compensation for the delay. An argument could be made that extensive outage/network problems (longer than 2 hours?) are similar in duration/effect, and that similar compensation should be due.
I'm not saying that I expect this to happen, I'm just saying that there's plenty of precedent for other types of businesses compensating customers beyond merely giving refunds.
jc
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 18:31, John Martinez <jmartinez@zero11.com> wrote:
So the most constructive answer that I received related to this thread is that someone is using Comcast Ethernet services for $5.25/MB for a 500MB pipe. I wonder how much 10MB synchronous would cost?
From: http://business.comcast.com/large/index.aspx "call 1-866-511-6489, option1 to speak with an Account Manager" Same page also has other contact resources. -Jim P.
Yes, Comcast started providing transit late last year. A couple hosting providers have connectivity to them here in Chicago. FDCServers.net has 30Gbps or 40Gbps to them. http://www.t1r.com/client/view.php?rid=55765 Steven King wrote:
Comcast has an Ethernet service?
John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
On 2/20/09 11:36 PM, Andrew Prowant wrote:
Yes, Comcast started providing transit late last year. A couple hosting providers have connectivity to them here in Chicago. FDCServers.net has 30Gbps or 40Gbps to them.
*raises an eyebrow* FDCservers.net eh? That's always reassuring. Given my past experiences with them, I'm not sure I'd want to use them as a 'great example'. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Back to the original topic on price. I am interested in this as well as we are looking for a failover network and had actually talked with Comcast. They were doing the work to see how far they had to trench. Does anyone out there actually use their Ethernet services? How stable are they? Good pricing? -----Original Message----- From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:bruns@2mbit.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:42 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: comcast price check On 2/20/09 11:36 PM, Andrew Prowant wrote:
Yes, Comcast started providing transit late last year. A couple hosting providers have connectivity to them here in Chicago. FDCServers.net has 30Gbps or 40Gbps to them.
*raises an eyebrow* FDCservers.net eh? That's always reassuring. Given my past experiences with them, I'm not sure I'd want to use them as a 'great example'. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
I have a client that has a number of business AT&T DSL and Comcast cable circuits for small remote VPN sites.....AT&T is great, rarely goes down.... Their Comcast circuits ALWAYS go down and are problems upstream per Comcast. I 'm not sure how much they cost thought, sorry. Chris Serafin Blake Pfankuch wrote:
Back to the original topic on price. I am interested in this as well as we are looking for a failover network and had actually talked with Comcast. They were doing the work to see how far they had to trench.
Does anyone out there actually use their Ethernet services? How stable are they? Good pricing?
-----Original Message----- From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:bruns@2mbit.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:42 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: comcast price check
On 2/20/09 11:36 PM, Andrew Prowant wrote:
Yes, Comcast started providing transit late last year. A couple hosting providers have connectivity to them here in Chicago. FDCServers.net has 30Gbps or 40Gbps to them.
*raises an eyebrow*
FDCservers.net eh? That's always reassuring.
Given my past experiences with them, I'm not sure I'd want to use them as a 'great example'.
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.1/1962 - Release Date: 02/20/09 07:26:00
Ok lets clarify. Comcast recently started offering Ethernet (read fiber delivery) circuits. Anyone know about stability and pricing on these. Please exclude all the commentary on any Comcast services that are "cable" based. -----Original Message----- From: ChrisSerafin [mailto:chris@chrisserafin.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:46 PM To: Blake Pfankuch Cc: Brielle Bruns; NANOG list Subject: Re: comcast price check I have a client that has a number of business AT&T DSL and Comcast cable circuits for small remote VPN sites.....AT&T is great, rarely goes down.... Their Comcast circuits ALWAYS go down and are problems upstream per Comcast. I 'm not sure how much they cost thought, sorry. Chris Serafin Blake Pfankuch wrote:
Back to the original topic on price. I am interested in this as well as we are looking for a failover network and had actually talked with Comcast. They were doing the work to see how far they had to trench.
Does anyone out there actually use their Ethernet services? How stable are they? Good pricing?
-----Original Message----- From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:bruns@2mbit.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:42 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: comcast price check
On 2/20/09 11:36 PM, Andrew Prowant wrote:
Yes, Comcast started providing transit late last year. A couple hosting providers have connectivity to them here in Chicago. FDCServers.net has 30Gbps or 40Gbps to them.
*raises an eyebrow*
FDCservers.net eh? That's always reassuring.
Given my past experiences with them, I'm not sure I'd want to use them as a 'great example'.
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.1/1962 - Release Date: 02/20/09 07:26:00
Fair warning, Comcast is totally into the bait and switch game. Talk to any 3 people at Comcast and you will receive at least 4 different answers about what is or isn't included. Having a particular offer in writing makes no difference to them. I will be contacting the Santa Clara County District Attorney about my experiences with Comcast in violation of CA B&P code S17500 soon. I spent the last two months trying repeatedly to get Comcast to recognize and live up to their obligations under the offer they originally extended to me. They waffled for a very long time before I finally reached someone who flat-out told me that they were not ever going to deliver what was promised. Owen On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:26 PM, John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
I can't even get reliable home cable internet service from them. No way I would ever consider using them for transit. I would only consider a stub peer with them to help out the poor Comcast customers who are also trying to get to my data centers. Owen DeLong wrote:
Fair warning, Comcast is totally into the bait and switch game. Talk to any 3 people at Comcast and you will receive at least 4 different answers about what is or isn't included.
Having a particular offer in writing makes no difference to them.
I will be contacting the Santa Clara County District Attorney about my experiences with Comcast in violation of CA B&P code S17500 soon. I spent the last two months trying repeatedly to get Comcast to recognize and live up to their obligations under the offer they originally extended to me. They waffled for a very long time before I finally reached someone who flat-out told me that they were not ever going to deliver what was promised.
Owen
On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:26 PM, John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-- Steve King Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:52:23 -0500 Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> wrote:
I can't even get reliable home cable internet service from them. No way I would ever consider using them for transit. I would only consider a stub peer with them to help out the poor Comcast customers who are also trying to get to my data centers.
I have decent (though of course by no means perfect) home business-grade cable Internet from them. I can download files from my office at 13M bps disk-to-disk, though of course uploads are slower. And their service people have been excellent since Verizon started offering FIOS in my town... (Yes, there have been glitches, most amusingly when I started seeing 5-20% packet loss and 5-90% packet duplication, and was told to clear my (Internet Explorer, which of course doesn't run on BSD) browser cache...) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:52:23 -0500 Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> wrote:
I can't even get reliable home cable internet service from them. No way I would ever consider using them for transit. I would only consider a stub peer with them to help out the poor Comcast customers who are also trying to get to my data centers.
Guys, I mean no offense, but this discussion probabbly belongs on a home user oriented forum like broadbandreports.com or similar.
Thanks.
The original inquiry was aimed at comcast's Ethernet service, which no one has actually responded to and the whole thread turned south from there.
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-----Original Message----- From: mike [mailto:mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:15 AM Cc: NANOG list Subject: Consumer broadband please move (was:Re: comcast price check) Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:52:23 -0500 Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> wrote:
I can't even get reliable home cable internet service from them. No way I would ever consider using them for transit. I would only consider a stub peer with them to help out the poor Comcast customers who are also trying to get to my data centers.
Guys, I mean no offense, but this discussion probabbly belongs on a home user oriented forum like broadbandreports.com or similar.
Thanks.
Mike, Comcast sells these business services but expects to be held to no SLA. It was a clear warning before going to use them, that you could run into potential problems with their "Enterprise-Grade" ethernet service. It took 4 months for their techs to figure out it was something wired wrong on their equipment. The bottom line is if you want your mission-critical services to work reliably 100% of the time, don't use Comcast. Ryan On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, mike wrote:
Guys, I mean no offense, but this discussion probabbly belongs on a home user oriented forum like broadbandreports.com or similar.
Thanks.
In a "Former Life" we used Comcast for transport for a school corporation. In the 3 years we used them we have 10 minutes of unscheduled downtime. Justin
How much "scheduled" downtime was there? ---Chris On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote:
In a "Former Life" we used Comcast for transport for a school corporation. In the 3 years we used them we have 10 minutes of unscheduled downtime.
Justin
Maybe it just depends on the area I have had Comcast Business Class at my residences through the past 7 years with no problems at all. Infact my current connection has almost a better uptime than our t1's at our office. Connected (165d 13h 29m 37s) with 16/2 minimum speed. I personally would use Comcast over Global Crossing based on personal experience :P Ive got a /29 awesome reliability and the name of my business rep who I can call when I need something. $99 a month doesn't seem bad for that. -----Original Message----- From: Steven King [mailto:sking@kingrst.com] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:52 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: comcast price check I can't even get reliable home cable internet service from them. No way I would ever consider using them for transit. I would only consider a stub peer with them to help out the poor Comcast customers who are also trying to get to my data centers. Owen DeLong wrote:
Fair warning, Comcast is totally into the bait and switch game. Talk to any 3 people at Comcast and you will receive at least 4 different answers about what is or isn't included.
Having a particular offer in writing makes no difference to them.
I will be contacting the Santa Clara County District Attorney about my experiences with Comcast in violation of CA B&P code S17500 soon. I spent the last two months trying repeatedly to get Comcast to recognize and live up to their obligations under the offer they originally extended to me. They waffled for a very long time before I finally reached someone who flat-out told me that they were not ever going to deliver what was promised.
Owen
On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:26 PM, John Martinez wrote:
Does any one here use comcast's ethernet services? If so, what is their price range?
Thanks in advance.
-- Steve King Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc. Cisco Certified Network Associate CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional CompTIA A+ Certified Professional
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Steven King <sking@kingrst.com> wrote:
I can't even get reliable home cable internet service from them. No way I would ever consider using them for transit. I would only consider a stub peer with them to help out the poor Comcast customers who are also trying to get to my data centers.
Whaa? You're using your home internet service as your guide for business-class carrier service? Isn't that a bit like comparing home DSL versus a business T1 that has SLAs attached to it? You're comparing apples to oranges when you compare home vs. business service, IMO... -- Eric http://nixwizard.net
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
Is anyone building linux/bsd-box add-on cards with off the shelf packet processors? Maybe something with the likes of http://www.netlogicmicro.com/ or whatever? -- Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.
Ray Burkholder wrote:
In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think.
Is anyone building linux/bsd-box add-on cards with off the shelf packet processors? Maybe something with the likes of http://www.netlogicmicro.com/ or whatever?
The first thing that comes to mind is this open source addon-card with FPGA-processor for routing packets in hardware: http://www.liberouter.org/liberouter.php
On 2/19/2009 9:37 AM, Ryan Harden wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than non-moving parts.
Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in your cost-benefit analysis.
/Ryan
Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
- -- Ryan M. Harden, BS, KC9IHX Office: 217-265-5192 CITES - Network Engineering Cell: 630-363-0365 2130 Digital Computer Lab Fax: 217-244-7089 1304 W. Springfield email: hardenrm@illinois.edu Urbana, IL 61801
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign University of Illinois - ICCN -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmdbpcACgkQtuPckBBbXboREgCguTikt2UwEIRHNfoNzASreLD/ YLcAoKdr/Gbw8CQuY9dTitvGQdD3+H0s =bsHP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ssd's remove the spindle from the equation..otherwise they both have fans that do fail.
William Warren wrote:
On 2/19/2009 9:37 AM, Ryan Harden wrote: While you could probably build a linux router that is just as fast as a real hardware router, you're always going to run into the moving pieces part of the equation.
In almost all scenarios, moving parts are more prone to failure than non-moving parts.
Regardless of what you find out in your research, consider the above in your cost-benefit analysis.
/Ryan
Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
ssd's remove the spindle from the equation..otherwise they both have fans that do fail.
And I had a ticket from a few months ago with one of our transit-providers because they had a Juniper router reboot, it turned out this was because a harddisk failure of one of the routing engines. So 'real'-routers have those moving parts as well. ;-)
Once upon a time, Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net> said:
And I had a ticket from a few months ago with one of our transit-providers because they had a Juniper router reboot, it turned out this was because a harddisk failure of one of the routing engines.
So 'real'-routers have those moving parts as well. ;-)
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Show me a "real" router without a fan; even the old Cisco 2501 had a fan in it. Most "real" routers can be heard outside the room! -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Leen Besselink wrote:
And I had a ticket from a few months ago with one of our transit-providers because they had a Juniper router reboot, it turned out this was because a harddisk failure of one of the routing engines.
Given the redundancy capabilities of Juniper M/T series, that actually scares me. NSF and ISSU are the biggies that I love about them. A harddisk failure should cause a quick kick to the backup RE.
So 'real'-routers have those moving parts as well. ;-)
If your 'real' router doesn't sound like a jet engine purring, consider an upgrade. ;) Jack
Not much really, besides your personal preference and the configurability of the device (will maintaining some semblance of sanity), there are some very nice custom linux based appliances out there e.g. vyatta routers, which boast 10 times throughput of Cisco (2800 series) routers, however it all comes down to what you want to do. -----Original Message----- From: Deric Kwok [mailto:deric.kwok2000@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:30 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: real hardware router VS linux router Hi All Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router? Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router? eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp Thank you for your information
Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
Archives have discussed this at extreme length. The most interesting thing I saw come out of it was this http://data.guug.de/slides/lk2008/10G_preso_lk2008.pdf See pictures describing the primary differences.
Imagestream is a very solid and mature solution. In order to head off the Holy War I am a Cisco guy too. It just depends on your budget and situation. Justin
From: Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 -0500 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: real hardware router VS linux router
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
Well, Our operation uses linux everywhere and we have our own in house tiny embedded flavor with all the tools and things that make it suited for use in big and small boxes as many kinds of router and general packet flipping appliance. I have confidence built on long term, real world experience that says I can do this sucessfully, but the price I pay for it is the knowledge curve and having had to invent the 'right' mix of stuff, which includes compact flash based boot media, read-only filesystem, and minimal management (command line via ssh, you need to be an expert), and as well as having had to select the right hardware (constraints include power on always, no dumb bios to stop the boot process, and other issues). I would never ever reccomend that anyone just 'use linux' for network appliances. It *can* do the job, but all the baggage of 'pc hardware' typically conspires to make for less than rock solid. Stuff like hard disks, which crash malfunction corrupt, and issues like - does the box power on when power is applied or does someone have to press a button? (You will note, most commercial hardware like routers and switches either don't have a power button, or simply default to being 'on' unless you take pains to flip buttons somewhere. But, PC's typically have a power button you have to press to make it come on). And there's other issues too - PC Bios's also conspire to get in the way and stop the boot process. If they detect some sort of error, a key press, a missing disk, or many other excuses, they stop cold waiting for someone to 'press f1 to continue', or worse. Also most PC systems also have single power supply units, and that which are less sturdy construction and are more likely to burn out at some point than the more heavy duty commercial grade units you see in commercial router/switch equipment). The difference then between linux and 'a hardware router' then is that the manufacturer - cisco, juniper, whomever - has a large degree of control over the integration between their software and the hardware it runs on, and can dictate all of the things that makes the product work like the boot process and it's internal storage and wether there are sufficient fans and what kind of power supplie(s) are present and wether there's a hardware watchdog (that works!) and the type of chips serving as the ethernet controllers (which dictates all kinds of things that the mnf considers 'features'). It's a long list. To summarize, you can do many jobs with linux. How WELL you do them, however, is more of a function of how much exerience and knowledge that you have. You can also do many jobs with commercial boxes, but how well you do that job can be expressed more in terms of selecting the right platform and plugging the right configuration lines into it, and both of these can easilly be 'done well' in exchange for money (router vendor support team, etc). Mike- Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
mike wrote:
Well,
Our operation uses linux everywhere and we have our own in house tiny embedded flavor with all the tools and things that make it suited for use in big and small boxes as many kinds of router and general packet flipping appliance. I have confidence built on long term, real world experience that says I can do this sucessfully, but the price I pay for it is the knowledge curve and having had to invent the 'right' mix of stuff, which includes compact flash based boot media, read-only filesystem, and minimal management (command line via ssh, you need to be an expert), and as well as having had to select the right hardware (constraints include power on always, no dumb bios to stop the boot process, and other issues).
I would never ever reccomend that anyone just 'use linux' for network appliances. It *can* do the job, but all the baggage of 'pc hardware' typically conspires to make for less than rock solid. Stuff like hard disks, which crash malfunction corrupt, and issues like - does the box power on when power is applied or does someone have to press a button? (You will note, most commercial hardware like routers and switches either don't have a power button, or simply default to being 'on' unless you take pains to flip buttons somewhere. But, PC's typically have a power button you have to press to make it come on). And there's other issues too - PC Bios's also conspire to get in the way and stop the boot process. If they detect some sort of error, a key press, a missing disk, or many other excuses, they stop cold waiting for someone to 'press f1 to continue', or worse. Also most PC systems also have single power supply units, and that which are less sturdy construction and are more likely to burn out at some point than the more heavy duty commercial grade units you see in commercial router/switch equipment).
The difference then between linux and 'a hardware router' then is that the manufacturer - cisco, juniper, whomever - has a large degree of control over the integration between their software and the hardware it runs on, and can dictate all of the things that makes the product work like the boot process and it's internal storage and wether there are sufficient fans and what kind of power supplie(s) are present and wether there's a hardware watchdog (that works!) and the type of chips serving as the ethernet controllers (which dictates all kinds of things that the mnf considers 'features'). It's a long list.
To summarize, you can do many jobs with linux. How WELL you do them, however, is more of a function of how much exerience and knowledge that you have. You can also do many jobs with commercial boxes, but how well you do that job can be expressed more in terms of selecting the right platform and plugging the right configuration lines into it, and both of these can easilly be 'done well' in exchange for money (router vendor support team, etc).
If you had to choose, it's probably smarted to go with OpenBSD, it has a lot better integration of packet filter, bgpd-daemon, ospf, vrrp-like, etc. Also depending on the structure and needs of your network, PC-routers may be cheaper and thus you can buy more of them for redundancy. Linux has other qualities, for smaller router and firewall setups I would prefer OpenBSD. But people can do whatever they want, hell even my (Sony Bravia) TV runs Linux.
Mike-
Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
Have you had experience to compare real router eg: cisco VS linux router?
eg: streaming speed... tcp / udp
Thank you for your information
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009, Leen Besselink wrote:
If you had to choose, it's probably smarted to go with OpenBSD, it has a lot better integration of packet filter, bgpd-daemon, ospf, vrrp-like, etc.
If you'd like a hope in hell of handling higher packet rates, where "higher packet rates" is "more than an NPE-200", then evaluate all of the open source operating systems before making that choice. Evaluate means "build test rig and test", not "read blog articles about how cool OpenBSD + PF is and how it worked for one person who bothered to write a glowing review." Too often do I come across people who have setup OpenBSD + PF, put it into production, then wonder why things perform craptastically after a couple hundred megabits. Convert to FreeBSD + PF, or Linux + iptables; this mostly goes away. (Same with Linux and freeBSD with big firewall rulesets, because they followed blog posts and didn't bother reading the documentation..) 2c, Adrian
On 22/02/2009, at 8:27 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
If you had to choose, it's probably smarted to go with OpenBSD, it has a lot better integration of packet filter, bgpd-daemon, ospf, vrrp- like, etc.
If you have one eBGP session in your whole network, sure. However if you have more than one, BGP cannot do the "Prefer the path with the lowest IGP next-hop metric" thing, as OpenBGPd does not know metrics from OpenOSPFd. Someone commented that OpenBSD would be able to do this soon as metrics were added in to the routing code in - current, but I have not tried this personally and a quick couple of queries on Google didn't reveal anything other than internal OpenOSPFd stuff. I have however used OpenBGPd and OpenOSPFd with great success on routers we put at single-homed customer sites for a small business- only ISP I used to work at. We used BGP communities to put prefixes in to PF tables, and then shaped and accounted based on that. (Here in NZ we have a few thousand domestic prefixes, which transit to/from is often cheaper than transit off-shore). -- Nathan Ward
Anymore success to use multiple CPU to bind NIC to increase the performance Thank you On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net> wrote:
On 22/02/2009, at 8:27 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
If you had to choose, it's probably smarted to go with OpenBSD, it has a
lot better integration of packet filter, bgpd-daemon, ospf, vrrp-like, etc.
If you have one eBGP session in your whole network, sure.
However if you have more than one, BGP cannot do the "Prefer the path with the lowest IGP next-hop metric" thing, as OpenBGPd does not know metrics from OpenOSPFd. Someone commented that OpenBSD would be able to do this soon as metrics were added in to the routing code in -current, but I have not tried this personally and a quick couple of queries on Google didn't reveal anything other than internal OpenOSPFd stuff.
I have however used OpenBGPd and OpenOSPFd with great success on routers we put at single-homed customer sites for a small business-only ISP I used to work at. We used BGP communities to put prefixes in to PF tables, and then shaped and accounted based on that. (Here in NZ we have a few thousand domestic prefixes, which transit to/from is often cheaper than transit off-shore).
-- Nathan Ward
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 EST, Deric Kwok said:
Hi All
Actually, what is the different hardware router VS linux router?
I'm continually amazed by the number of people who manage to conflate two entirely different issues here. There's *TWO* axes here: | PC-class hardware | routing-blade-architecture hardware -----------+-----------------------+----------------------------------- proprietary| | -----------+-----------------------+----------------------------------- open-source| | Kinda like that. A Juniper box (which is a BSD running on something that's *not* PC-class hardware) is a prime example that it's not "hardware versus linux" - it's two separate questions. 1) Is PC-class gear "good enough"? Do you have the hardware interfaces needed, and the I/O backplanes? Or is something with more oomph needed? 2) Does the software running on the box support the feature set you need?
DK> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 -0500 DK> From: Deric Kwok [ snip ] Let's blur the line a bit more: CompactPCI? NICs such as those [apparently] offered by Cavium... or any other number of places working ARM/Freescale, MIPS, or PowerPC magic on NICs? What is "real" hardware, anyway? Would a 26xx, 38xx, et cetera qualify under said definition? Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/0xebd ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
I think it's safe to define "real hardware" as hardware with ASIC's as opposed to software based solutions. On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Edward B. DREGER < eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net <eddy%2Bpublic%2Bspam@noc.everquick.net>>wrote:
DK> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:30:16 -0500 DK> From: Deric Kwok
[ snip ]
Let's blur the line a bit more:
CompactPCI? NICs such as those [apparently] offered by Cavium... or any other number of places working ARM/Freescale, MIPS, or PowerPC magic on NICs?
What is "real" hardware, anyway? Would a 26xx, 38xx, et cetera qualify under said definition?
Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/0xebd ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
-- Josh Potter
participants (47)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Andrew Prowant -
Bailey Stephen -
Bill Blackford -
Bill Nash -
Blake Pfankuch -
Brandon Galbraith -
Brian Keefer -
Brielle Bruns -
Bruce Grobler -
Chris Adams -
Chris Wallace -
ChrisSerafin -
Colin Alston -
David E. Smith -
Deric Kwok -
Edward B. DREGER -
Eric Gearhart -
Ingo Flaschberger -
Jack Bates -
JC Dill -
Jeffrey Lyon -
Jim Popovitch -
Joe Greco -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Martinez -
John van Oppen -
Josh Potter -
Justin Wilson - MTIN -
Leen Besselink -
mike -
Nathan Ward -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul M. Moriarty -
Paul Stewart -
Ray Burkholder -
Ryan A. Krenzischek -
Ryan Harden -
Seth Mattinen -
Steve Bertrand -
Steve Pirk -
Steven King -
Steven M. Bellovin -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Hamilton -
William Warren