[AusNOG] powerful routers in core/edge routing/switching

[McDonald Richards]

What has port density, capacity or throughput got to do with routing?

Why do people with networks in a single geographic region, even if multi-homed, need to run default-fee? You know you can use a default route and a routing subset to achieve both redundancy and faster convergence?

I'm pretty happy with the current generation of hardware and where it sits price-wise. There have been a lot of good suggestions in the thread so I won't throw anymore in.There are cheaper and smarter ways to do things, but with smarts comes the risk that nobody else can support your tangled web of network magic.

Macca


From: Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au<mailto:joshua at railgun.com.au>>
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2013 11:06 AM
To: "AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] powerful routers in core/edge routing/switching

The problem is routing has lagged far behind switching in terms of port density, capacity, throughput etc. Obviously a switching engine is peanuts compared to a routing engine, but it is exaggerated by the massive amounts of features they put in routing engines.

Seems to me we almost need a new breed of edge routers, ones that just talk BGP to other providers, and the current edge can stay as they are handling fancy things like MPLS which is really more of an internal routing, therefore switching, feature. Or not :)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130213/6f115369/attachment.html>