[36556] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Yen)
Tue Apr 10 18:12:02 2001
Message-ID: <20010410172821.D16338@nntp.AegisInfoSys.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:28:21 -0400
From: Henry Yen <henry@AegisInfoSys.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20010411044216.Q4313@ewok.creative.net.au>; from Adrian Chadd on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:42:16AM +0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 04:42:16AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:20 PM
> > > Please let me know when your Linux box is capable of doing
> > > line rate forwarding on an OC-192.
> > I actually saw a Linux box capable of doing this. It was on IBM S/390
> > hardware. Admitedly, that would be a waste of horsepower. OC-192 is far to
> > slow to keep that box busy.
we've got a client who is playing with linux/390. it's such a ... anti-climax.
it looks and smells just like linux on a pee cee.
> .. actually, if only the PCI bus were faster, I'm sure someone
> could build a GigE linerate router running under FreeBSD or Linux.
>
> OC192 would probably want something a little more dedicated than
> a PCI bus. But then, thats what a Juniper is for, right? :-)
i always thought the JUNOS was basically FreeBSD with the routing table
code re-written. the remarks about freenix being able/unable to
run at these speeds (hardware bus notwithstanding) seem out of place,
as i think the real sleight-of-packet happens on hardware blades;
the supervisory operating system doesn't play much of a part here.
i'm sure many of us agree that Windows XP will be industrial-strength
enough to do the job, too. ;->
--
Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York
