[41096] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is the limit? (was RE: multi-homing fixes)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg A. Woods)
Wed Aug 29 15:03:30 2001
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods)
To: nanog@merit.edu (North America Network Operators Group Mailing List)
In-Reply-To: <20010829100648.A11110@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu (North America Network Operators Group Mailing List)
Message-Id: <20010829190236.4BA71E8@proven.weird.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:02:36 -0400 (EDT)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
[ On Wednesday, August 29, 2001 at 10:06:48 (-0400), Leo Bicknell wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: What is the limit? (was RE: multi-homing fixes)
>
> Don't even get me started on the discussion of why they were custom
> designing a board for the route processor, when there are off the
> shelf motherboards, or if it must fit in a form factor, motherboard
> designs that would be less costly for them, use all off the shelf
> parts, and would allow them to bring things to market quicker.
Take a look inside a Juniper router -- you should be pleasantly
surprised by the very standard CompacPCI processor board you'll find
inside of it that, among a few other things, does the route
processing.... and it's running mostly stock FreeBSD no less.... even
with a root prompt you can get at!
> There was no reason for those past failures. It was a combination
> of bean counters, cluelessness, and lazyness.
Interestingly some of the Juniper engineers are ex-Cisco from what I know....
> The routing table
> is growing slower than the number of lines of code in Windows, and
> god help us if we can make Windows "work" we should be able to do
> some simple routing.
Aint that the truth!
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
