[48158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routers vs. PC's for routing - was list problems?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daryl G. Jurbala)
Thu May 23 09:49:02 2002
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:53:40 -0400
From: "Daryl G. Jurbala" <Daryl@Introspect.net>
In-reply-to: <5.1.1.2.2.20020523092128.033e9878@pop3.tellurian.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-id: <1022162026.2793.5.camel@daryl-workstation>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 09:26, Vinny Abello wrote:
common router. Otherwise, if you can get the functionality out of a PC, I
> say go for it! The processing power of a modern PC is far beyond any router
> I can think of. I suppose it would just be a matter of how efficient your
> kernel, TCP/IP stack and routing daemon would be at that point. :)
And that's MY real question. Who has actually done this in a production
environment that can speak with some real experience on the topic? What
can you replace with a linux box to route and run BGP for you in real
life? A 7200? Bigger.
I don't have the facilities to try these things out for real, and
frankly would be worried about the uptime and finding the RIGHT PC
hardware that isn't complete junk.
So I guess it's really two questions: what is a PC capable of replacing
as far as throughput goes, and just how reliable can a clone (or pick
your manufacturer) be compared to a unit that was designed by electronic
engineers to function as a 24x7 mission critical box?
Daryl G. Jurbala
Independent Consultant (read: looking for a job)
daryl@introspect.net
