Researchers in South Korea have built a networking router that transmits data at record speeds from components found in most high-end desktop computers. A team from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology created the router, which transmits data at nearly 40 gigabytes per second--many times faster than the previous record for such a device.
The techniques used by the researchers could lead to a number of breakthroughs, including the use of cheaper commodity chips, such as those made by Intel and Nvidia, in high-performance routers, in place of custom-made hardware. The software developed by the researchers could also serve as a testbed for novel networking protocols that might eventually replace the decades-old ones on which the Internet currently runs.
http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/26096/?nlid=3423
Two great quotes from the article:
"That isn't fast enough to take advantage of the full speed of a typical
network card, which operates at 10 gigabytes per second."
Anybody got a network of PCs that have cards that run at 10GBytes/sec? 
For that matter, have enough 10Gbit network cards shipped that they are now
considered "typical" (as in "more than 5%")? A Lamborghini costs about 10
times as much as a nice Camry. 10Gig cards are closer to 30-50 times as much as
1gig cards. Now, if Lambos aren't typical cars, are 10Gig cards typical? Just
sayin'....
"Lash enough software routers together that run at 40 gigabytes per second, and
you get what is essentially a single-terabit router. Using such a system,
routers might some day run completely in software."
Ahh.. but the lashing is the tricky part that costs the big bucks, as these
guys will undoubtedly discover - life will get a lot more complicated once they
saturate the first PCI backplane and need a second. Who wants to bet they'll
end up re-inventing SGI's NUMAlink or similar interconnect?
I missed that, and that answers the "was it a GigaBytes verses Gigabits
error" question. Nothing new here by the looks of it - people in this
thread were getting those sorts of speeds a year ago out of PC hardware
under Linux -
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/15/234
"I have achieved a collective throughput of 66.25 Gbit/s."
"We've achieved 70 Gbps aggregate unidirectional TCP performance from
one P6T6 based system to another."
Researchers in South Korea have built a networking router that
transmits data at record speeds from components found in most
high-end desktop computers
http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/26096/?nlid=3423
Two great quotes from the article:
"That isn't fast enough to take advantage of the full speed of a
typical network card, which operates at 10 gigabytes per second."
Anybody got a network of PCs that have cards that run at
10GBytes/sec? 
I have a journalist who can keep track of signficant digits...
For that matter, have enough 10Gbit network cards shipped that they
are now considered "typical" (as in "more than 5%")? A Lamborghini
costs about 10 times as much as a nice Camry. 10Gig cards are closer
to 30-50 times as much as 1gig cards. Now, if Lambos aren't typical
cars, are 10Gig cards typical? Just sayin'....
10gig nics are becoming ubiquitous in datacenters. 10Gigabit on
mainboard is pretty ubiquitous in in bladeservers and adds about $150 to
the BOM of a 1u pizza box in volume (for copper).
"Lash enough software routers together that run at 40 gigabytes per
second, and you get what is essentially a single-terabit router.
Using such a system, routers might some day run completely in
software."
Ahh.. but the lashing is the tricky part that costs the big bucks, as
these guys will undoubtedly discover - life will get a lot more
complicated once they saturate the first PCI backplane and need a
second. Who wants to bet they'll end up re-inventing SGI's NUMAlink
or similar interconnect?
pci isn't a shared bus anymore it's a series of tubes...
In any event, they don't have to, we have quick-path which 100Gb/s
per-direction per path at 3.2ghz or pci-e 3.0 which is 8Gb/s per lane
and comes with all the lovely logic you expect from a (non-ethernet)
switch fabric.
What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
I disagree here. Core routing isn't purchased based on cost, it's purchased based on support. People have not adopted Vayetta, or Mikrotik or many of the other small routing platforms which are in fact MUCH cheaper than the bridge or the tree (cisco or juniper), and the reason is simply support.
If my router breaks beyond my ability to fix it I have a certified engineer (of some value or other) at my site with parts to fix it within 4 hours. This is why people go with Cisco and Juniper. It's also a mechanism of CYA. Would we rather tell our boss that the company has responded and dropped the replacement part in the mail, or that a technician from the router supplier is on their way and will be here very shortly, and ooh, by the way, you did recommend redundant hardware when the piece that broke was purchased, and it was available at a discount.
Andrew
What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
I disagree here. Core routing isn't purchased based on cost, it's purchased based on support. People have not adopted Vayetta, or Mikrotik or many of the other small routing platforms which are in fact MUCH cheaper than the bridge or the tree (cisco or juniper), and the reason is simply support.
I disagree. Core routing is about performance, and, the bridge and the tree simply outperform Vayetta
and Mikrotik on more realistic small packet sizes when it comes to forwarding rate, interface density,
and other issues.
Outside the core, you might be right about it being a question of support.
If my router breaks beyond my ability to fix it I have a certified engineer (of some value or other) at my site with parts to fix it within 4 hours. This is why people go with Cisco and Juniper. It's also a mechanism of CYA. Would we rather tell our boss that the company has responded and dropped the replacement part in the mail, or that a technician from the router supplier is on their way and will be here very shortly, and ooh, by the way, you did recommend redundant hardware when the piece that broke was purchased, and it was available at a discount.
That doesn't help as much as you might hope. I've had situations where it tool (bridge or tree) several months to resolve a
problem. I have a case open with one of those vendors now for a PMTU-D problem which has been ongoing for many months.
Often, I get an update saying it's been escalated to engineering, several weeks go by and I get a request for information
already provided.
Owen
What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
I disagree here. Core routing isn't purchased based on cost, it's
purchased based on support. People have not adopted Vayetta, or
Mikrotik or many of the other small routing platforms which are in fact
MUCH cheaper than the bridge or the tree (cisco or juniper), and the
reason is simply support.
Neither of those are in the running for .5-1Tb/s forwarding devices.
stack up enough vyatta boxs to equal an mx960 or a t1600 and I think
you'll get my point.