[AusNOG] Open Networking

[Nik Geyer]

I thought Quagga now had LDP support (LDPd port from OpenBSD) and Cumulus was working on the Quagga -> Zebra -> Kernel LFIB code as we speak, and it should be available "real soon now".

The argument around why buy a $40k router when a $10k switch will do the job is a valid one, just make sure you validate all your technical requirements properly. For example, the way the UFT's are carved up on Trident can be odd at times, there are LFIB table size limits (that are different for ingress or transit labels), and so on. If it ticks all the boxes then go for it. Also if you need long distance optics or coherent optics, you'll be back to using a router ;)

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Jul 2016, at 12:51 PM, Ben Hohnke <settra+ausnog at gmail.com<mailto:settra+ausnog at gmail.com>> wrote:

We're looking into it, as there is a large cost saving to be had. Unfortunately, as we have a high reliance on MPLS for our network, our options are limited. Cumulus are adding in MPLS support soon, but its only BGP label distribution, which is not very handy in a large network. I've been talking with them, however, and am considering a limted trial in our network for some L2 stuff, in conjunction with some Agema Trident2 switches we have gotten in.

We're testing switch and virtual router software from Ip Infusion, but I wouldn't really call it "open" - the routing stack is based on Zebra I think, but everything is closed source.

We use VyOS a little where we don't need MPLS, and it does the job.

I've done some testing using OpenBSD and LDPd with OSPFd, but I was seeing some weird behaviour when I fed it a full LDP and OSPF table from our network.
We are a mainly Cisco and Mikrotik shop, however this is starting to change as newer players enter the market, and are able to beat the bigger players on price.


Longer term, I expect our core to contain little to no Cisco / $bigvendor, mainly because we're at a scaling point where the $ vs performance is heavily weighted against any of the big players. Why get a $40k router that can do 20-30Gb/s of forwarding when you can get a  $10k L3 switch that can do it all at line rate?



On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:35 PM Simon Attwell <simon at attwell.net<mailto:simon at attwell.net>> wrote:
Hi All,

Just curious how many of you have deployed / are deploying / Open Networking in production environments.
I'm interested to see if ON is making its way down to the edge (1Gbps PoE/PoE+) or if it's mainly being used at the distribution / core layers or at the service provider level where there's little end device connectivity and it's more about moving the packets around.

Comments on hardware choice / stability / longevity / MTBF / support, are also appreciated.

>From a Cumulus perspective it looks like 1 Gbps - 100Gbps is where things are focused.
Nothing with PoE/PoE+ support so it looks like at the moment we're only talking about datacenter switching.

What I don't see deployed today is a lot of technology mix, especially in switching. Customers have a preference and for support / interop / personal reasons tend to stick with a single vendor for switching.
In the past this has made sense as switches did not always play well with others.

I'm wondering what you all think the 3 - 5 year picture looks like.

I suspect it looks a lot like the current virtualization market. A few major players with custom software built on open source foundations, being hardware agnostic and the holdouts trying to ignore the fact that the industry is fundamentally changing.

- Simon








_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20160705/383fb0b0/attachment.html>