[98521] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [ppml] too many variables
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (vijay gill)
Fri Aug 10 15:28:35 2007
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:41:46 -0700
From: "vijay gill" <vgill@vijaygill.com>
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@ipinc.net>
Cc: "John Paul Morrison" <jmorrison@bogomips.com>, ppml@arin.net,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <NABBJOELMNGNJNGPKDDOKEDKHDAA.tedm@ipinc.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_6483_27130475.1186771306383
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 8/10/07, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@ipinc.net> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of
> vijay gill
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:08 AM
> > To: John Paul Morrison
> > Cc: ppml@arin.net; nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] too many variables
>
>
> > I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point
> isn't that the latest generation
> > hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from the local hardware store is
> doubling processing power every n months.
> > The point is that getting them qualified, tested, verified, and then
> deployed is a non trivial task.
>
> This is nonsense. The hardware cpu de jour that you pick up from the
> local
> chop shop is 1-2 years
> BEHIND what the high end fileserver vendors are using. Companies like HP
> go
> through a qualification,
> testing and verification process for their high end gear that is no less
> rigorous than what Cisco uses.
I knew reading nanog was a bad idea. However, now that I am well and truly
in the weeds, might as well go forth.
The phrase that I think I am looking for is.... it's coming to me...almost
there.... ah yes
amortization specifically amortization...units sold... cost basis...
something something.
/vijay
The big difference is that the PC vendors get the processors from Intel and
> AMD when they are
> in beta, and do their design and development while Intel and AMD are doing
> their own
> CPU design and development. So when Intel is done and ready to release,
> there is little work
> for the PC vendors left to do to ship complete product.
>
> The router vendors are approaching this like Ford and Chevy build car
> computers. They can get
> old Pentium 3 700Mhz chips for a few bucks a processor so that is what
> they
> are using. They
> can make an extra $90 in profit selling a $5000 router CPU card that has a
> $10 processor in it than
> a $5000 router CPU card that has a $100 processor in it. And from a
> marketing perspective if
> the router uses some exotic RISC chip that nobody has ever heard of,
> (because it's 15 year old
> obsolete technology) that somewhat insulates them from unflattering
> comparisons like what
> people are making here.
>
> This kind of attitude is symptomatic of the embedded systems industry.
> Price the stuff out first
> THEN develop for it. This is why for example you don't have an Ethernet
> jack in your automobile
> that you can plug a laptop in and get a complete fault code analysis for a
> vehicle failure
> from an embedded webserver in the engine computer. The embedded systems
> people insist on
> reinventing the wheel every time they design something and do their best
> to
> ignore what
> goes on in the PC world.
>
> Go ahead and make your arguments about deployment, but it is the router
> vendors who are foot
> dragging here.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
------=_Part_6483_27130475.1186771306383
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Mittelstaedt</b> <<a href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net">ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net">ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>]On Behalf Of<br>vijay gill<br>> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:08 AM
<br>> To: John Paul Morrison<br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>; <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [ppml] too many variables<br><br><br>> I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point
<br>isn't that the latest generation<br>> hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from the local hardware store is<br>doubling processing power every n months.<br>> The point is that getting them qualified, tested, verified, and then
<br>deployed is a non trivial task.<br><br>This is nonsense. The hardware cpu de jour that you pick up from the local<br>chop shop is 1-2 years<br>BEHIND what the high end fileserver vendors are using. Companies like HP go
<br>through a qualification,<br>testing and verification process for their high end gear that is no less<br>rigorous than what Cisco uses.</blockquote><div><br><br>I knew reading nanog was a bad idea. However, now that I am well and truly in the weeds, might as well go forth.
<br>The phrase that I think I am looking for is.... it's coming to me...almost there.... ah yes<br>amortization specifically amortization...units sold... cost basis... something something.<br><br>/vijay<br><br></div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The big difference is that the PC vendors get the processors from Intel and<br>AMD when they are
<br>in beta, and do their design and development while Intel and AMD are doing<br>their own<br>CPU design and development. So when Intel is done and ready to release,<br>there is little work<br>for the PC vendors left to do to ship complete product.
<br><br>The router vendors are approaching this like Ford and Chevy build car<br>computers. They can get<br>old Pentium 3 700Mhz chips for a few bucks a processor so that is what they<br>are using. They<br>can make an extra $90 in profit selling a $5000 router CPU card that has a
<br>$10 processor in it than<br>a $5000 router CPU card that has a $100 processor in it. And from a<br>marketing perspective if<br>the router uses some exotic RISC chip that nobody has ever heard of,<br>(because it's 15 year old
<br>obsolete technology) that somewhat insulates them from unflattering<br>comparisons like what<br>people are making here.<br><br>This kind of attitude is symptomatic of the embedded systems industry.<br>Price the stuff out first
<br>THEN develop for it. This is why for example you don't have an Ethernet<br>jack in your automobile<br>that you can plug a laptop in and get a complete fault code analysis for a<br>vehicle failure<br>from an embedded webserver in the engine computer. The embedded systems
<br>people insist on<br>reinventing the wheel every time they design something and do their best to<br>ignore what<br>goes on in the PC world.<br><br>Go ahead and make your arguments about deployment, but it is the router
<br>vendors who are foot<br>dragging here.<br><br>Ted<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_6483_27130475.1186771306383--
