Yes, the prob is that it uses the CPU to do the BGP stuff and to route
packets. This is a bad way to do it, you dont want to use your CPU to move
the packets.
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.
To the argument that Cisco IOS is inherently easier or harder to configure
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>.
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 -
This whole ease of config, IOS vs. gated is silly. Reminds me alot of an
argument folks had long ago.. something about German not suitable to write
opera in, and Italian being the language to do it in. Since then I've heard
plenty of good German operas, and even couple of decent English operas.
If we are going to argue, then let's talk about functionalities of various
implementations and then take it to respective developers of your favorite
implementation so that all our tools are better.
-dorian
If we are going to argue, then let's talk about functionalities of various
implementations and then take it to respective developers of your favorite
implementation so that all our tools are better.
We are using _both_, and have some comparation:
(1) IOS have more features in comparation with gated - no doubt, because
IOS was developed in the longer time. Through gated.conf is well-defined
language, IOS's config is a great heap of very strange commands and nodoby
(almost) can config IOS coprrectly withouth great practice.
(2) There is some tasks we can't solve in IOS at all, or can solve in very
hacker's vays. That's because IOS and gated have quite different schemes
of redistridutions (in gated, I can control PROTO->PROTO redistribution
on the per-neighbour basis; in IOS I can control redistribution into
the BGP protocol totally);
(3) There is very interesting idea in gated - it recalculates 'localpref' into
the 'preference'; it allows to provide some back-up schemas we can't do in IOS at all.
Of cource gated have not (yet?) some IOS's functionality - bgp reflection,
bgp community (IMPORTANT!), have quite other (in comparation with IOS) 'localpref'
control. But when we are generating our gated's and IOS's configs from the
data base - this task is much easy for _gated_ than for _IOS_.
And I hope if Ascend have made commercial revision of gated for their
routers - they does have a chance to compete with the IOS.
(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;
Yep, right now I am using 64 megs.
(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???).
Yes, but you can't get the speed out of the PC. I don't care how fast your
CPU is, it will be slower then port to port switching. Don't get me wrong,
I am a big fan of PC routers. I think I am the only one with a PC router
at MAE-East (will be upgraded to a NetStar or cisco in 4 days). I started
Netrail when I was 18, and no one would give me big money and I wanted to
peer at MAE-East and play with the big guys. I did not have the money to
upgrade all of our 4000s to 7000s, so we built PC routers. I think it was
the best thing we did.
Ok, now we are building a OC3 and DS3 backbone and a PC can't come close
to the PPS a cisco or NetStar can. My only question is should I go with
the NetStar/Cascade or just cisco network?
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!