Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet IT

Router Wars 142

Posted by Hemos from the the-battle-begineth dept.
Chris Holland writes "On the heels of Juniper Networks' recent release of its TX Matrix Platform, Om Malik is giving an interesting overview of current and upcoming battles between protagonists of the Router Game, armed with their Terabit toys."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Router Wars More

Router Wars

Comments Filter:

  • Routers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:09PM (#11072760)
    Did anyone else think Linksys Routers, hehehehehe *passes out on the couch*
    • Linksys ... kinda like the USRobotic sportsters of the early days. Friendly, easy to use, all over the freakin place and dirt cheap !

    • Re:Routers/Linksys (Score:2, Informative)

      by srau ( 30995 )
      Linksys, A Division of Cisco Systems, Inc.

      Cisco had pretty much given up on the cheap CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) market, then bought Linksys a year or so ago so they could keep a foot in it.

      --Stafford
    • Actually, I'm in the midst of building Christmas presents for the in-laws, and I was thinking "Dewalt vs. Porter Cable"
    • Wow! A review of a terrabit router. Where is the promised overview of the battle? Did you get the link wrong?

  • Say what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:13PM (#11072785)
    I'm pretty sure that summary says something meaningful, but heck if I can figure out what it is.

  • SUNDAY SUNDAY SUUUUUNNNNDDAAAAAAAYYY (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:17PM (#11072808)
    Router Wars

    The sound...of 2 teeeeeerrrrrrraaabits...of raw poowweerr.

    Watch the Juniper Junker take on the Cisco Crusher this SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY.

    Kids's tickets are just five buuuuux!

  • There's the Cisco packet game. The game that not only confused me about who it was being marketed toward. But also drove me nuts about its gig with Port au Prince and whatever the rest of the crap on it was. I'm no expert on Haiti, but I don't think stereotyping everyone living in Port au Prince as impoverished schmos who get their water from 5 hours away per day. The game's simply creepy. Peter Packet [cisco.com]
  • Is that the thing thar InterWeb(tm) runs on?

    WTF.

  • What kinda dollars are we talking about here?

  • overly simplistic overview (Score:5, Informative)

    by jsailor ( 255868 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:24PM (#11072868)
    if that's not redundant.

    This is a large battle, but not one that is won or lost over a few months and not one that is won by comparing simplistic metrics that the press like to use. Software, management, and operations support have always been key in the routing market. Many faster or bigger router companies with unique technologies have gone nowhere. The list is long and depressing. In any case, Cisco has made a dangerous jump ahead by introducing a new operating system that is loosely based on QNX and enables multi-chassis systems. It also enables in-service software upgrades and host of other operations friendly features. Juniper was perceived as having an edge in software, but Cisco will have leapfrogged them if their software delivers (and that's a big if in many people's minds).

    Juniper's TX is somewhat handicapped in it's first release (I believe only 2 systems can be linked) and doesn't have a paying customer. Cisco's CRS-1 is limited in interface types in it's first release and has adubious first set of customers. There are many more issues including: weight, power consumption, scalability, support for specific features, handling lawful intercept across a system that large, integration with management systems, etc., etc, etc.

    In short, the market is hesitant to purchase either system due to tight CapEx budgets and other pressures. Given the relatively diminutive size of the core router market when compared to edge routing and LAN switching, this a more a battle for prestige than for anything else.

    For more info and industry commentary, see:
    http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc _id=63 958&site=lightreading
    http://www.lightreading.com /document.asp?doc_id=63 916&site=lightreading
    http://www.lightreading.com /document.asp?site=test ing&doc_id=63606

    • Does this mean that the new Cisco routers are based on Intel CPUs? If I rember correctly QNX is Intel only but that may have changed. What about the new IBM/Sony/Toshiba Cell cpu? I wonder how well it would do in IO intensive work. Since it can be linked it would almost seem like a perfect fit for a BIG router.
      • No, they use dual PowerPCs (don't know which model) on the Route Processor card, see:
        http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/p roduct s_data_sheet09186a008022d5f1.html

        and mostly likely similar chips on the line cards.
        Keep in mind that the system makes extensive use of custom ASICs for packet processing, switch fabric, and other functions.

    • Is abudious a word?

      If so, are you willing to admit you found it on thesaurus.com?

  • Confused... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kzinti ( 9651 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:25PM (#11072874) Homepage Journal
    Never known anybody who's even tried a Cisco router. I've been pretty happy with my DeWalt DW625 plunge router - 3 horsepower, electronic variable speed, soft start, and a nice rack-and-pinion depth adjuster. And what is this tera bit everybody is talking about? I've heard of straight bits, v-groove bits, mortising bits, rabbeting bits, cove bits, roundover bits, and tongue-and-groove sets of bits, but never a tera bit. Anybody care to give me the lowdown on this new woodworking equipment?
    • You, sir, are my hero.

    • Re:Confused... (Score:3, Funny)

      by JustOK ( 667959 )
      The terra bit is fer digging holes in da ground. You can use it when you need a bigger pipe.

    • Re:Confused... (Score:3, Funny)

      by dhovis ( 303725 )

      Terra is the SI prefix for one trillion.

      Terrabits refers to the number of router bits owned by Norm Abram.

      • Terrabits refers to the number of router bits owned by Norm Abram.


        He's built a neat shed for them, too. If you'd like to try this project yourself, a measured drawing is available; more information about that later in the program.

        Now, before we get started with any power tools, a brief word on shop safety...

        • Re:Confused... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kzinti ( 9651 )
          Now, before we get started with any power tools, a brief word on shop safety...

          Good edit point! That's exactly where I turn off the TV, wait about fifteen seconds, then turn it back on. When my timing is good, I rejoin the program just in time to hear the hiss of the trailing 's' in "saftey glasses".

          The problem with Norm is he owns too many expensive, exotic tools. A band saw. A planer. A table saw the size of the Astrodome. Hell, he's even got a jig he can put on his electric screwdriver that will autom
          • I like the guy, but I make no pretense to myself that I'll be able to do the work, because like you pointed out, what he does often takes a lot of expensive tools. I watch more for learning the concepts behind why something gets made the way it does, etc. What irritates me the most is that he'll spend a lot of time on some elements, and then tell people to go buy pre-made legs and things, which look ugly on his projects.

            When this show first came out, Bob Vila was still hosting This Old House. I remember li
          • How on earth do you work without a planer? The bandsaw is...an oversight. Survivable, but I'd be striving to get one, were I you. In Europe, the BS is the "central" machine, as we treat our tablesaws. And, speaking of that, his TS isn't big (it's a standard sized cabinet saw), he has just made a bunch of outfeed space and a very long side support. That's all shop-made space. The actual factory saw part is stock, and it's just a normal 10" blade. Now, if you had mentioned his hydraulically actuated w
            • The sad truth is that I just don't do a lot of woodworking... not as much as I'd like. I guess if I retire one day, then I'll have the time and the money. Until then, I just fool around a bit, and when I need it, I buy pre-planed stock.

              I know that Norm's table saw is "enhanced" as you say, and it's not "really" that big. I just guess I had a workshop as big as his. Something else to build when I get the time.

              Oh yeah, that BIG belt sander, geeze! That thing must be new, because I've only seen it on one rec
              • Yeah, I wish I had a huge shop, too. Half the basement is less than ideal. It's not too recent an acquisition - at least a few seasons old. I think even /he/ is hesistant to use it unless he really needs to because just using that thing is gloating. *USED* ones go for $7K or so.
    • You misread

      It's the Terror Bit, a packet-data monster. You deploy it at the network perimeter, when hackers try to get in it sneaks up behind them and goes "Boo". Then it stabs them through the crotch with an ice-pick.
    • Remember the router scene in Bound [amazon.com]. Very sexy!
    • "... I've been pretty happy with my DeWalt DW625 plunge router - 3 horsepower, electronic..."

      How do you get 3 HP from a 110V, 20 amp electrical outlet? Maybe if the efficiency is 100% and you ignore the startup. Or is this model a 220V router?
      • Well, I was just quoting DeWalt's rating, I've never actually done the math, but let's see... (runs units, runs bc...)

        3HP is 2237W. Standard US voltage is 117V... at 20A and a 1.0 power factor, that's 2340W - in the ballpark.

        DeWalt says the motor is 15A, which would only make about 2.1HP at a 0.9 power factor. DeWalt's 3HP must be peak HP or "developed" HP, and not rated HP.
    • just remember - don't bring a router to a tablesaw fight.
  • How much does one of these multi-terabit cost? More than my car? More than my house? Just a question from a curious and uneducated cretin.
    • More than your house (unless it's a big fancy one). In fact one linecard is likely to cost more than your house.
    • Based on my experience as an network designer and network capital budget planner, I'd estimate the cost of these routers at somewhere between 3 and 4 standard deviations above your average 3-bedroom rambler in Des Moines.

      But if you can (sorta-)comfortably commute to San Jose or Sunnyvale, the same house may buy you a Tera-able router.

    • Re:Cost? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Shishak ( 12540 )
      Hrm. let me open up my Cisco price book. list price (nobody pays list price) on the following:

      CRS-1 Series 16 port OC48 card is $790,000
      CRS-1 Series 4 port OC192 (10gbps) card is 1,030,000
      CRS-1 16 slot, single chass is $450,000

      The fan tray on the thing is $20,000!!!!! and you need the fan controller for another $13,000!!!

      I think it is safe to say it would cost more than your house & car

  • A little introverted on the details (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:27PM (#11072883) Homepage Journal
    • The JUNOS software that ran on Juniper routers was more reliant than some of the problems with Cisco's Internet Operating System (IOS) software.

    Read I did that sentence four times and then afterwards I cannot image the idea of what it means to be it.

    (I think I know what he meant, that because of problems with IOS, JUNOS was more reliable, but I'm not in tune with the router market so I can't be sure. But to continue, in English:)

    The analysis of market gains and new product comparisons is useless without prices: what are the MSRP and street prices for the various models? Where do the prices look like they're going for the various models? What a manufacturer is doing with its prices would tell me a lot about their strategy and how competitive they really think their products are.

    • The JUNOS software that ran on Juniper routers was more reliant than some of the problems with Ciscos Internet Operating System (IOS) software.
      No no no, what he meant to say was exactly what he wrote;
      The Juniper's OS is more reliable than Cisco's problems (i.e. bugs?).
      I guess that means that either Cisco implemented the necessery functions as bugs/problems, or that JUNOS works in the same way Cisco don't.

      I'm still confused though...

  • No winners in the router wars (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mstrgeek ( 820200 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:28PM (#11072892)
    Great write up hope you find it educational

    http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2004/062104noll e.html

  • I suppose people who are interested in this stuff are kinda like space age tarmac engineers, or more perhaps traffic light designers on speed.
    I don't think it'd mater how hard I tried, I just couldn't find routers an interesting topic, any more than canals. Hang on, I'll have a go...
    Big up the router designing people! I for one welcome our new router controlling overlords.

    • Go Re-index your database (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You code-jockey...

      Don't ya know Routers is what powers dat innernet?

      signed
      Peter Peter the Packet eater
  • Great write up om the router Wars

    http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2004/062104noll e.html

  • Oh, whatever... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dominion ( 3153 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:37PM (#11072959) Homepage
    I don't know too much about high-end routers, so I'm just gonna say this:

    Begun, the router war has.

    Okay, that is all.
  • I'm sure he'll screw this one up, too, and destroy what used to be a great story....oh, wait a minute.....
  • If you guys are interested in the next-generation of routers from Cisco, be sure to check out this presentation Cisco came to the office and gave regarding all the new bells and whistle of their new line of routers.

    Link to power-point presentation (Works great in OO.org): New Cisco Router presentation [topside.org]

    I think the coolest thing to come out with these is going to be the GUI router and PIX config. You can see some screenshots of it in the presentation, its mind-boggling and worth drooling over.

    These routers also have specialized processors on them for everything they do. They have crypto chips to encrypt/decrypt things, they have DSP cards to decode voice, VPN accelerator chips, chips to process ACLs etc. They also have some badass modules for them including Unity (voice-mail) module for the router itself! A module with full voice-mail capability including a 10GB hard disk to store the messages along with 4+ DSPs on the card to decode the voice traffic going to/from that card. This takes a hell of alot of load of the CPU for more generic tasks.

    Anyway, the link again is http://blaze.topside.org/~topside/isr.ppt [topside.org]

    • Post your thoughts of this presentation and the new features of the routers. I think these new routers are AMAZING. Check the presentation and let me know what you think of these upcoming ISRs. I'll try to answer any questions the best I can. Sadly, I do not have any 2800's to play with yet as they are still on order for our lab.
    • I think the coolest thing to come out with these is going to be the GUI router and PIX config. You can see some screenshots of it in the presentation, its mind-boggling and worth drooling over.
      Over the last 12 years I have tried 5 Cisco GUI configuration tools (IIRC). Currently I use the command line, as does everyone I know with moderate-or-above Cisco experience.

      But this one will do the trick!

      sPh

    • Yeah its wonderful that Cisco is adding more features into its router line. So now I don't need a VPN device, a VoIP device and maybe some network device in addition to my router - thats great.

      But as for your nice new GUI for PIX and router config, its going to be the death of lots of networks. I keep seeing people who get their CC** and can't understand an end to end service - routing, ACLs and applications. Instead they want to talk to me about their pretty pictures and how they are doing real work.

    • I think the coolest thing to come out with these is going to be the GUI router and PIX config.

      Ah yes.. the graphical PIX config, aka, PDM. Lovely little thing with it's real time graphics generation and traffic monitors. That is, until you try to actually get the PIX to do what you want. It's about that time that you hit the X at the top of the Window and fire up Minicom or HyperTerminal or any SSH client. I can write up a complete configuration for a PIX that has VPN client access, some server access

  • I've heard... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Monday December 13, 2004 @12:57PM (#11073156) Homepage Journal
    Santa Clause doesn't consider terabit routers "toys" and so won't be handing them out to good little geeks. He's hoarding them at the North Pole, where he's running the fastest LAN party on Earth...


    On a serious note, I very much like the increased competition in the router market. That's good. Nobody gains and everybody loses when there's only one real player in the game.


    I would like to see router developers be a little more FOSS-friendly. Hey, I'm not asking Cisco to Open Source IOS - that would never happen - but IOS supports only a small handful of routing protocols and is woefully lacking on QoS support. Whilst Cisco hardware is very likely highly tuned to the protocols they do use, software is software and a module system would be trivial to develop. (This would not be true if Cisco routers were "real" hardware routers, but almost nobody codes in hardware unless they absolutely have to.)


    Would it hurt Cisco to support pluggable protocols and QoS algorithms? I can't see how. It would lessen the attractiveness of any competing system that had some feature Cisco themselves didn't support. And if a third-party module proved popular, it would likely be cheaper to buy it than pay a development team to write it from scratch.


    This goes for all their competitors, too, of course. Whether it's Juniper, 3Com, or whoever, no company has the time or the resources to develop and maintain code for all the different protocols out there. They can only support the most popular, which may not be the most effective in any given case. (Popular tends to mean a compromise, not just on capability and throughput, but also on maintenance costs, development costs, etc.)


    As things stand, Linux has vastly superior packet filtering and QoS support than almost any commercial router on the market. I've not used the *BSDs for a while, but from what I'm hearing, they're comparable or even better in some areas. All this code, all this expertise, all this R&D, and the major manufactuers can't even touch it. That's stupid.


    Yes, license issues would probably block any attempt to port Linux modules over. Probably, but not definitely. As in the closed-source modules in Linux argument, dynamic linking can be considered to involve two distinct programs and therefore not in licensing conflict. The BSDs would have no problems at all, regardless.


    Why would Cisco care about such code? Or any of the other manufacturers? It's not up to their usual standards, and they wouldn't make money from it.


    Because it weakens the argument for moving to someone else. Because third-party modules aren't their problem to support, so they don't need to care about stability. Because anything that cuts R&D costs without cutting the R&D is earning money. Very significant amounts of money.


    Because most of the uber-nerds who are involved in network administration are more likely to have a Unix-ish background (and therefore have a mindset geared to extensibility) than a desktop background (where brand-naming has typically won out over technical characteristics).


    Finally, because that would allow these router companies to cash in on the media-darling of the moment (Open Source) without compromising on their supposed Intellectual Property rights. Potential gain, no risk of loss, sounds a good exchange to me.

    • The junOS is based on FreeBSD, thus the packet filtering capabilities of junipers is pretty damn good.

    • I would like to see router developers be a little more FOSS-friendly. Hey, I'm not asking Cisco to Open Source IOS - that would never happen - but IOS supports only a small handful of routing protocols and is woefully lacking on QoS support.

      What are the routing protocols that Cisco doesn't support you'd be interested in? I only work with IP at layer 3, so I don't do routing protocols for IPX, Appletalk, Vines, DecNet, etc. But for IP Cisco supports:

      OSPF
      RIP v1 and v2
      IGRP
      EIGRP
      IS-IS
      IBGP, EBGP, MBGP
      MPLS TD
      • If you're going to use an ISO standard interior gateway routing protocol, such as ISIS, would it not make sense to use the companion exterior gateway protocol ESES and/or the companion hybrid ESIS? BGP is a cool protocol, but it doesn't always play nice. Using something designed specifically to work with ISIS would seem to be more logical.

        There's no EGP support. Not catastrophic, as not many people use it as a percentage of the population, but some do. If they do, they cannot work with Cisco products, bec

    • Competition is a great thing when there are decent competitors offering similar products. Given what you've written here I think you've heard a lot of things but not gotten very much right.

      You said "...but IOS supports only a small handful of routing protocols and is woefully lacking on QoS support...". Name a router OS that supports more routing protocols than IOS? There isn't one. There is no Linux OS that supports all the routing protocols of even a basic Cisco router. Can you point at a single QOS
    • I've been in meetings for the last few weeks because the company I work for is looking at purchasing a new core network so we can run 10GigE everywhere. Its not terabit, but the routers we are looking at (Foundry NetIron's, Extreme 10k's, etc) have a backplane in terabit territory and can push a heck of a lot of data. One cool tidbit of information: Extreme Networks 10k boxes now run modified linux. If you are trained on Cisco equipment, you can change the CLI to "become" a Cisco box - if you are all a
      • The company I work for is running Extreme everywhere except the WAN (Cisco 2600/3600s). Alpine 3808s, Summit 200/300/400s, Black Diamond 6808s in the core.

        If I had one wish for Christmas, it would be to rip out all this purple Barney-box shit (and I do mean shit) and go with Cisco 4500s / 6500s. Hell, I would even use the stackable 3750s if I had to.

        Buggy to nonexistant POE, NO gig POE, boxes that roll over and die for no reason, blades that fail but pass extended diagnostics...

        But worst of all, their su

    • Re:I've heard... (Score:3, Informative)

      by notarus ( 216298 )
      As a few other people have already pointed out, Cisco's IOS supports every ROUTING protocol currently in use out there, assuming you purchased the correct load (not every load supports IS-IS, for example).

      Any "fast" router runs almost exclusively in hardware, not in software. Writing hardware code IS hard, because you're trying to do a LOT of often conflicting things (forward packets, filter packets, qos packets). But anytime a CPU gets involved in a packet forward, you're running SLOW. Even OLD cisco rout
  • Cisco bought them [com.com] for pennies on the dollar. I heard from insiders that they immediately sent people into the office and plant and put all of the hardware into crushers. Every box.

    That's one way of dealing with competition.
    • Cisco bought Procket Networks for the engeering talent that they have attracted with in the last few months, not their product. There is some speculation that Procket would never have a product, but rather being formed as a way for Cisco to recruit engineers from other routing companies. Think about it, the possibilty of having Cisco buy a start up you work for is a nice carrot to have dangled in front of you.
    • I think you got that confused with the time Bill Gates bought Home Simpson's internet company, CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet(tm), and quickly ransacked his house.
  • How did Juniper ever even get into the game against Cisco, the undisputed heavy weight router champion? Well, a lot of people credit that to Tony Li. So what did Cisco do? They re-hired Tony back from Juniper (well, actually Procket). Tony is credited with much of the work done on the orignal Cisco IOS. There is an article about his re-hiring on Light Reading. [lightreading.com]

    I would say the war is nearly over. Cisco will break out the old saying, Resistence is futile, you will be assimilated.

    • Tony is credited with much of the work done on the orignal Cisco IOS

      What does Tony think about being back at Cisco? Presumably he had a reason for leaving for Juniper -- maybe money, maybe technical freedom, who knows? But here he is back at the company he left several years ago.

      Chip H.
  • Whatever happened to Redback Networks [redback.com]?

  • A side note (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Monday December 13, 2004 @01:40PM (#11073527) Homepage Journal
    Although the big routing companies are moving forward (slowly) and developing new technologies for shifting packets (that the rest of us have had for ages), it has to be said that they do seem to be the only ones actually getting anything done.


    Of the software routers I know about, GateD went closed-source, has switched owners a few times since then, and seems to have lost most (or all) of its momentum and popularity.


    Click, developed by MIT, is Open Source and under active development, but very few routing elements have been written for it. I know of no *BSD or Linux distributions that use it, either. Without visibility, nobody will know it's there to write anything for it.


    Zebra, Quagga and MRT are all dead. I can't find a version of routed more recent than July 2000. Multicast routers, such as mrouted, pimd and pimdd, have been left to rot. The wireless software router AODV-UU is not so much maintained as kept on life-support. The others that I know of have long-since been buried and are now best-used as compost.


    The number of Open Source geeks involved in science, research and networking is phenominal. Linux is gaining control over the top500 supercomputer list, and NetBSD keeps on setting new speed records on Internet 2. Both Linux and the *BSDs put commercial router systems to shame for the options they support, the flexibility of their packet filtering/mangling, and the level of control administrators can have. (Power... Power.... POWER...... Bwahahahahahaha!)


    But with all this know-how, with all this knowledge of the fundamentals involved, and with all the obvious interest these people have in Open Source/Free Software, there is nobody out there working on a commercial-grade Open Source software router. Where routers are used, they're commercial, off-the-shelf branded products.


    FOSS can beat NEC's "Earth Simulator", can turn Cray to pulp, frequently out-performs closed-source products on comparable hardware. The European Space Agency even uses a GPLed microprocessor in rockets and satellites. But nobody has been able to a software router project going.


    This just does not compute. In the past, Cisco has even admitted to adding back-doors to their routers. I don't know if they still do, or if it's possible to close the holes in the older systems with a firmware upgrade. The problem with closed-source is that you can never know. You can only trust. The very people who know this and who would NEVER tolerate such uncertainty in any other area of computing - for reasons I will never understand - are totally accepting of this with their network routers and firewalls. The elements of their network most vital to maintaining integrity and security.


    I'll wrap it up here, to say that I really, truly hope someone replies to this, saying "you're wrong", with a link to a live, vibrant, active Free/Open Source software routing project. That would be the best christmas present I could have.

    • There seems to be an automatic desire on Slashdot to compare the features of Linux/BSD boxes to anythging under discussion (in this case high-end routers). There's no question that FOSS implementations have the flexibility to implement lots of cool new features at a rapid rate. Then again, these FOSS implementations aren't saddled with requirements to run at hundreds of millions of packets per second on custom ASIC's, or, indeed, to run in real-time production-critical systems.

      Juniper, Cisco and similar

      • If you can upload a new copy of firmware, then there is plenty that is coded in software, rather than hardware. Many manufacturers adopt this approach, because it's more practical to distribute a new image than it is to distribute a new chipset.

        (Certainly, it's much less efficient. Pure hardware is always superior for speed and latency, almost by definition.)

        I never claimed Linux should be used instead of Cisco's IOS. Rather, I suggested that Cisco's IOS could be modified to support dynamic linking, in


    • http://www.xorp.org/

      I haven't had time to play extensively, but it worked well during initial tests.

      Of course, some of you may run and scream because Intel, the NSF, and Microsoft have provided some funding.
      • That doesn't bother me. I've done a stint at Intel, and I did discover they really are from planet Earth, there. Well, for the most part.

        Eight months between releases, though... It wouldn't be too bad, but the changelog for that time is hardly mindboggling. Alive? Well, yeah, I guess it does count as alive. Vibrant? Ahhhhhhh...... no.

        Still, being alive is 100% better than Zebra (dead) and 1000% better than GateD (Undead Zombie King). So, to you (and the others who mentioned Xorp), thanks! I appreciate t

    • Re:A side note (Score:2, Informative)

      by MadPhatTim ( 202447 )
      I'll wrap it up here, to say that I really, truly hope someone replies to this, saying "you're wrong", with a link to a live, vibrant, active Free/Open Source software routing project. That would be the best christmas present I could have.

      You're wrong. The OpenBSD [openbsd.org] developers released OpenBGPD [openbgp.org] with OpenBSD 3.6 a little while ago. It's already working well and is under active development, so expect even more exciting features and power with the next OpenBSD release in ~5 months. Combined with OpenBSD's PF [openbsd.org]

  • I think the high end router market is more competitive than people think. Cisco is the name that everyone knows about, but there are other big players out there. Most people don't know the names because the number of customers for a $x00,000 router is small. The marketing for that type of product is very different and name recognition isn't the biggest thing.

    I've personally seen that in the Sprint network in Las Vegas they have many Juniper GigE routers all over the place. But there are other vendors i

  • Juniper FreeBSD (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ttroutma ( 552162 )
    Since it hasn't been mentioned in this thread. JunOS is essentially FreeBSD. So, you can do cool stuff that the /. crowd should enjoying like running multiple virtual routers on a laptop. http://www.lab-rats.net/v-olive.html Being FreeBSD based, the Unix geek with no previous routing experience can learn it, IMHO, faster than the Cisco assuming no previous experience with either.
    • As far as I know JunOS will only boot on a box which has an intel etherexpress card, so noway you gonna get it working on a laptop. But maybe people got it working with other nic's as well?
  • Some small routers like some Linksys were based on Linux. Juniper's routers have a UNIX-like interface... so it seems apparent that a cheap router based on Linux is doable.

    And I dont mean a miniITX board with flash and running a PentiumIII. I mean the newer models of MIPS CPUs, or even something like Athlon64 or Power5 for better throughput. Something to compare with higher end offerings of Cisco and Juniper.


  • What I want is a product that is able to offload SSL processing in large quantities. We're limited right now with our load balancers in that we're stuck at 1,000 SSL connections per second. That's not near enough in our current environment. We need to load balance lots of SSL processors to scale out. I'd rather scale up with a bigger box to simplify configuration.

    Does anyone know about any of the vendors in this area? I really wish they'd tune one of these big routers for load balancing and SSL processing.
    • Well, I don't have a lot of experience with SSL offloading (we are an ISP and do webhosting, but we aren't a hosting provider with crazy amounts of SSL-enabled sites), but I met with Cisco a few weeks ago to purchase some new equipment (I don't think I am going to though), and they showed me their 7600 series boxes. One of the blades that you can stick in these is an SSL processor. Click
      Here
      to check out the link. Here is the summary:

      Up to four SSL service modules can be installed in each chassis provid
    • Well, I don't have a lot of experience with SSL offloading (we are an ISP and do webhosting, but we aren't a hosting provider with crazy amounts of SSL-enabled sites), but I met with Cisco a few weeks ago to purchase some new equipment (I don't think I am going to though), and they showed me their 7600 series boxes. One of the blades that you can stick in these is an SSL processor. Click Here [cisco.com]
      to check out the link. Here is the summary:

      Up to four SSL service modules can be installed in each chassis provi
  • I think if I take my Porter-Cable with Titanium-carbide bit against your Juniper Terabit, my Porter-Cable will win the battle.

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close