Re: GigaRouter (Was Re: Cisco as Big Brother))

[alex () relcom eu net]

>   I said how it could be done, not that it ought to be done.  I have found
>   a P5-150 with BSD/OS, GateD, ScreenD, and DEC FDDI or Ether (PCI DMA either
>   way) to be a perfectly useful gateway/firewall.  It won't do full FDDI but
>   my root name server can't tell the difference so I must not be facing that
>   load.  I've also run four T1's, or 64 28.8K modems, through one of these
>   boxes.  But the bit and packet loads in these cases are "trivial" compared
>   to a core router inside any nationwide/worldwide network, either Inter or
>   Intra.  When only a Cisco or Netstar will do, my boxes are toys.  But the
>   world has an ongoing need for more toys -- not every router is doing 300K
>   packets per second with multiple OC12 links.
Really, I do not like PC-based routers, through this kind of routers have some
advantages:

(1) when PC-based router became out of memory, I have to add some more memory -
I pay about 200$ for extra 16Mb of ram, and that's all;

(2) when PC-based router became out of CPU, it can be upgraded to the
faster CPU easy. Intel's power increases draqmatically every month, and I have'not
pay extra 100,000$ for the new super/giga/huge-ROUTER (as 7513) -
I pay new 1,500$ and get new PC with Pentium/200, for example.
And I know there would be available better processor in next 6 month -
and I would'not have to pay next 100,000$ (or I there have to pay
new 20,000$ for the new CS4700, for example - why can't I change
CPU in CS4500, or why can't I add extra 32Mb of the RAM into my CS4500,
and WHY have I to pay 3,500$ for the 32Mb ram if this RAM costs
600$ on the free market???).

This is the advantages of PC. Hope you know disadvantages too -:)

>   To the argument that Cisco IOS is inherently easier or harder to configure
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -:)
This is a joke... there is nothing more complex and orderless than
IOS's config -:)

>   than GateD, I say: "Feh."  If you can get an IOS geek with 7+ years worth
>   of IOS-shaped tire tracks down their backside, then IOS will seem a lot more
>   powerful.  If all you can get is me, IOS will seem slippery and awkward and
>   confusing and gated.conf will seem like deliverance.  Anybody who cuts and
>   pastes config examples to demonstrate why one is "obviously clearer" is just
>   blowing smoke.  The rare element here is human expertise, not documentation
>   clarity or parser simplicity or any of the things geeks like to argue about.
>
>   In an overlooked comment of a few days ago, someone here mentioned that it
>   was generally easier to get someone with nonzero expertise to come help run
>   your network if you configured it via Cisco IOS rather than gated.conf.  And
>   this is true.  For now.  If someone else gets market share (which is usually
>   done via other means than technical merit, btw) then the other guy's config
>   syntax will start to get known by more folks.  Given that it is *definitely*
>   better to build a network that new hires can help you run, if that network
>   is expected to grow at all, Cisco IOS has a real edge right now.  I don't
>   consider Cisco terribly vulnerable since if they wanted to drop their prices
>   by half they'd still make a pile of money.  Not someone to compete against;
>   they can beat you coming or going.  That's why I so admire the folks who
>   *are* trying to beat Cisco in this game.  What chuzpah!  <clink>.
--- 
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -