[101945] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Neil J. McRae)
Mon Jan 21 02:59:28 2008
From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:58:28 +0000
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>, Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com>
CC: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I'm sure they will make it work but there a long list of issues using PCs a=
s routers that still applies capex goes to opex.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
Sent: 21 January 2008 02:23
To: Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Cost per prefix [was: request for help w/ ATT and terminology]
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008, Jeff McAdams wrote:
> A Linux box (*BSD, pick your poison) running Quagga or similar will do
> the job at an extremely low price point.
>=20
> Yeah, again, not gonna want to pass gigs of traffic through it, but the
> same concept does still apply.
I dunno, the *NIXes seem suddenly interested in fixing up their internal
network code to try and handle 10GE stuff "better". You might find that
someone decides to drop in a crazy-looking intel e1000 NIC driver at some
point thats tailored towards forwarding 64 byte frames at gige rate.
The commercial guys hacking on FreeBSD routers/bridges keep telling me
they've done it w/ custom coding on intel NICs on decent-looking PCIe
hardware. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility nowdays.
Adrian
