[130428] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: router lifetime
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Sat Oct 2 21:22:41 2010
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <franck@genius.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 21:22:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6672656.613.1286064555265.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Well a lot of routers even 3 years ago support IPv6. You can dual-stack pre=
tty much any router today if you have
the right IOS. But I do understand your concern=2C if you want to future pr=
oof your purchase=2C I'd think any modern
router today with a good support contract will take care of you for quite s=
ome time.
Make sure it's not close to EOL.=20
What kind of router are you considering? Is this for a large network? What =
are the network needs?
> Date: Sat=2C 2 Oct 2010 17:09:20 -0700
> From: franck@genius.com
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: router lifetime
>=20
> I'm looking at various scenario=2C but basically it is looking at IPv6 in=
fact.
>=20
> It seems to me=2C that using a router/network appliance today for IPv6 wi=
ll need to be replaced in 3 years or less.
>=20
> Looking at past=2C anything older than 3 years is not a viable solution f=
or deploying IPv6.
>=20
> So I feel that routing/network appliance equipment have a life cycle simi=
lar to a PC=2C despite the fact as someone pointed out=2C they will run fin=
e for many many years.
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heath Jones" <hj1980@gmail.com>
> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@genius.com>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday=2C 2 October=2C 2010 4:34:40 PM
> Subject: Re: router lifetime
>=20
> > How long do you keep a router in production?
> > What is your cycle for replacement of equipment?
>=20
> Hi Franck
>=20
> It really depends on the type of network you are running=2C the rate at
> which new features & bandwidth are required=2C and the availability of
> software and hardware upgrades. Also=2C in a lot of cases it is vendor
> driven - devices that are still very much in production are forced to
> be replaced because of vendor product lifecycle and the phasing out of
> support=2C even when serving their requirements well.
>=20
>=20
> Care to elaborate a little more on your planned scenario?
>=20
>=20
> Cheers
> Heath
>=20
=
