Re: SDN Internet Router (sir)

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

I suspect it always will have value, whether it's peering routers, POP routers, multi-homed customer routers, etc. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Matthew Walster via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> 
To: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <lists () packetflux com> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 9:34:16 AM 
Subject: Re: SDN Internet Router (sir) 






On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 11:25 Forrest Christian (List Account), < lists () packetflux com > wrote: 




In the end though, I do expect that the hassle of setting up and managing a solution like this is likely to result in 
most people deciding that it isn't worth the extra complexity just to avoid upgrading a low fib device where a larger 
one is really needed. 




Quite the contrary, nearly 10 years ago (just before SIR was released) I was doing this precisely because the lower fib 
box was a good tradeoff between ports and cost, and needed something to do IXP/PNI peering with. Only instead of 
running the sflow analysis on the box, I was exporting it elsewhere and pushing prefix filters every once in a while to 
make sure the highest traffic prefixes were served locally. 


Ultimately, it's part of the TCO of your network, and when traffic volumes are high, you look for any opportunity to 
reduce that CapEx cost of a fully high FIB router. 


It sounds like the idea still has value! 


M 



<blockquote>

</blockquote>