As far as I know open source solutions doesn't have support for fabric or high speed asics. So the throughput will always be a big difference. Unless you are comparing a pure packet software interrupt platform.
Hasn't there been a post about this to the contrary?
Isn't someone from Google presenting at NANOG about this?
Adrian
Not high speed ASICs, but there are hardware-forwarding open-source(in
a broad definition) solutions:
http://netfpga.org
There are 3 related presentations on NANOG 50, which suggests these
solutions are reaching "real ops" quality.
Rubens
I hate to sound (more) like a broken record but if people want
to see open source hardware forwarding platforms succeeding
(and the software platforms get better), then look at trying to be
involved in their development.
Too many companies seem to think open source equates to "free stuff
that I can use and not pay for"; rather than thinking of it as
a normal product (with development cycles, resources, etc that any
commercial development requires) that gives them the ability to
choose their own direction rather than be beholden to the whims
of a vendor.
One of the fun divides in open source at times is the big gap between
"works" and "works in practice". The only way to get "ops ready" stuff
is to work with open source people to make it actually work in your
environment rather than "what works for them". 
(Or you could wait for Google - but doesn't that make you beholden
to them as your vendor?
Adrian
I'm more than interested in developing a much cheaper, hardware
forwarding router..
I think there is a lot of room for innovation - especially at the
target market in this thread.
If anyone wants to work with me on this, just let me know!
I've got a tonne of ideas and a bit of free time..
NetFPGA is a good platform, im saving my pennies to buy one and do
some development.
Its only a 4 port device, so not a device you would really use in
production however.
I'm more than interested in developing a much cheaper, hardware
forwarding router..
I think there is a lot of room for innovation - especially at the
target market in this thread.
If anyone wants to work with me on this, just let me know!
I've got a tonne of ideas and a bit of free time..NetFPGA is a good platform, im saving my pennies to buy one and do
some development.
Its only a 4 port device, so not a device you would really use in
production however.
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view (current 340k routes).
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view
(current 340k routes).
It's just a development platform for prototyping designs, not
something you would use in production...
I want to use it to implement and test ideas that I have, and play
with some different forwarding architectures, not use it as a final
product 
also, does a datacenter router/switch need a full table? isn't that
the job of the peering/transit routers in your scheme?
also, does a datacenter router/switch need a full table? isn't that
the job of the peering/transit routers in your scheme?
Sometimes, but often you get odd results when internal gateway routers only see a pair of default gateways via OSPF or IS-IS. Sometimes the only real fix is to have a full table on these routers as well as your border/peering routers.
James
But it seems, that NetFPGA has not enough memory to hold a full view
(current 340k routes).It's just a development platform for prototyping designs, not
something you would use in production...
I want to use it to implement and test ideas that I have, and play
with some different forwarding architectures, not use it as a final
productalso, does a datacenter router/switch need a full table? isn't that
the job of the peering/transit routers in your scheme?
In my small network the datacenter router is also the peering/transit router.