Router Wars 142
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."
Routers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Routers (Score:1)
Re:Routers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Routers/Linksys (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:Routers (Score:1)
Re:Routers (Score:1)
Re:Routers (Score:1)
Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
I don't understand it too, anyone care to explain, for people too lazy[*] to RTFA? :>
[*] average slashdotter
Re:Say what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe some advertisement for juniper?
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
No-one can tell you what TX Matrix is - you have to RTFA for yourself :)
Re:YEAH!!! (Score:1)
Re:YEAH!!! (Score:2)
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUUUUUNNNNDDAAAAAAAYYY (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:SUNDAY SUNDAY SUUUUUNNNNDDAAAAAAAYYY (Score:2)
(gotta love the SB references.
Re:Shut up, idiot (Score:2)
Re:Shut up, idiot (Score:2)
Thus we see yet another crack in the system of
Ah, well, that's okay--I would also like to see a -1 trollbait and +6 "I spit my drink through my nose funny" options. Oh well.
Re:SUNDAY SUNDAY SUUUUUNNNNDDAAAAAAAYYY (Score:2)
Re:SUNDAY SUNDAY SUUUUUNNNNDDAAAAAAAYYY (Score:2, Funny)
BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDGE!
Speaking of Cisco and Routers (Score:2, Funny)
Router? (Score:1)
WTF.
Over 75 Customers (Score:2)
Cost effective. (Score:2)
Cue the; "Phhhht. I can build a Linux box running Zebra for $100" comments. Which will be followed by: "FreeBSD is a much better platform than Linux for such a solution."
Re:Cost effective. (Score:2)
Don't forget to welcome the new terabit router overloards as well.
Re:Cost effective. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cost effective. (Score:1)
Re:Cost effective. (Score:2)
Never underestimate the capacity of a truckload of DVDs. Latency sucks, but thruput is tremendous.
overly simplistic overview (Score:5, Informative)
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?do
http://www.lightreading.co
http://www.lightreading.co
Re:overly simplistic overview (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:overly simplistic overview (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/
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.
Re:overly simplistic overview (Score:1)
If so, are you willing to admit you found it on thesaurus.com?
Re:overly simplistic overview (Score:2, Funny)
Confused... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Confused... (Score:1)
Re:Confused... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Confused... (Score:3, Funny)
Terra is the SI prefix for one trillion.
Terrabits refers to the number of router bits owned by Norm Abram.
Re:Confused... (Score:1)
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)
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
Re:Confused... (Score:1)
When this show first came out, Bob Vila was still hosting This Old House. I remember li
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
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
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
Re:Confused...Terror. not Tera (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Even more offtopic... (Score:2)
Re:Confused... (Score:1)
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?
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
Only if the power factor is 1.0!
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
Cost? (Score:1)
Re:Cost? (Score:1)
Re:Cost? (Score:1)
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)
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)
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.
Re:A little introverted on the details (Score:1)
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...
Re:A little introverted on the details (Score:1)
Does Winders count as a proof of concept?
Re:MSRP doesn't matter (Score:2)
Computing the price delta and extrapolating to the slope of its curve, then using that in conjunction with market share statistics gives a reasonable construction for where a product is going.
Re:MSRP doesn't matter (Score:2)
My Verio DS-3 (now Cogent ???) runs on Juniper and has been rock solid for over a year.
Wasn't the whole above.net black hole this summer caused by a Cisco crash while implementing MPLS in their core?
Hrmm. maybe I should look at Juniper more closely when I need to replace my aging 7500s
No winners in the router wars (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2004/062104noll e.html
Exciting (Score:1)
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)
Don't ya know Routers is what powers dat innernet?
signed
Peter Peter the Packet eater
No winners in the router wars (Score:1, Redundant)
http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2004/062104noll e.html
Oh, whatever... (Score:3, Funny)
Begun, the router war has.
Okay, that is all.
Oh, great, something else for Lucas to ruin (Score:2)
Badass new Cisco router's (presentation included) (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include (Score:1)
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include (Score:3, Insightful)
But this one will do the trick!
sPh
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include (Score:2)
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.
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include (Score:2)
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
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include (Score:1)
Cisco ONS devices would be on your tier1/2 providers that actually jack into the fiber ring via direct STS si
Re:Badass new Cisco router's (presentation include (Score:2)
I've heard... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I've heard... (Score:1)
Re:I've heard... (Score:1)
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
Re:I've heard... (Score:2)
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
Re:I've heard... (Score:1)
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
Re:I've heard... (Score:1)
Re:I've heard... (Score:2)
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)
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
Did anyone hear about procket networks ? (Score:2)
That's one way of dealing with competition.
Re:Did anyone hear about procket networks ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did anyone hear about procket networks ? (Score:2, Funny)
Why there is a war (Score:2, Informative)
I would say the war is nearly over. Cisco will break out the old saying, Resistence is futile, you will be assimilated.
Is Tony happy being back? (Score:2)
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.
wither redback? (Score:2)
A side note (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:A side note (Score:1)
Juniper, Cisco and similar
Re:A side note (Score:2)
(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
"you're wrong" - What about XORP (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:"you're wrong" - What about XORP (Score:2)
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)
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]
Re:A side note (Score:2)
More competition than people think (Score:1)
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)
Re:Juniper FreeBSD (Score:1)
And the winner is... (Score:1)
Linux-based routers? (Score:2)
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.
Argh, what I want... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Argh, what I want... (Score:3, Informative)
Here
to check out the link. Here is the summary:
Up to four SSL service modules can be installed in each chassis provid
Re:Argh, what I want... (Score:1)
to check out the link. Here is the summary:
Up to four SSL service modules can be installed in each chassis provi
Destroyer (Score:1)