nanog mailing list archives

Re: Vyatta as a BRAS


From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:08:52 +0930

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:07:36 -0400
Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Brett Frankenberger
<rbf+nanog () panix com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:13:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:

This document supports that. If the definition of a software router is
one that doesn't have a fixed at the factory forwarding function, then
the ASR1K is one.

The code running in the ASICs on line cards in 6500-series
chassis isn't fixed at the factory.  Same with the code running on the
PFCs in those boxes.  There's not a tremendous amount of flexibility to
make changes after the fact, because the code is so tightly integrated
with the hardware, but there is some.

(Not saying the 6500 is a software-based platform.  It's pretty clearly
a hardware-based platform under most peoples' definition.  But:  the
line is blurry.)

    -- Brett



Surely the important point for most forwarding engines is that there
is isolation between control, management and forwarding planes?

If I'm looking for a box, I want line rate forwarding on all
interfaces. I want stateless ACLs and policing functions on the
forwarding plane. I want to use those functions to protect the control
and management planes. I want the control plane to cope with the
required amount of forwarding state and churn. I want the management
plane to be somewhat as capable as the Linux tools I run to maintain
the network.

And that's the crux of the issue. Can the box survive if line rate
maximum PPS is being aimed at it, either for forwarding or at the
control plane? If the answer is yes, then whether it is a "software
router" or "hardware router" is academic.


I don't honestly care whether it is a single cpu, multi-core
multi-cpu, ASIC or NPU.

That being said, for the networks I help maintain, the C6K meets most
of those requirements. I think the N7K is movement in the right
direction. I consider both to be L2/L3 switches :-)

-- 
Tim:>


Current thread: