VA> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
VA> From: Vadim Antonov
VA> Regarding the diameter of the Internet - I'm still trying to
VA> figure out why the hell anyone would want to have "edge"
VA> routers (instead of dumb TDMs) if not for inability of IOS to
VA> support large numbers of virtual interfaces.
Reasons I hear:
1. It's more expensive.
Unh? Take a six-port router filled with dual [chan-]DS3
cards. 12 x 45 = 540 Mbps max. Real traffic probably
makes it to 200 Mbps on a regular basis. A router like
a 7206VXR can't be fed any more cards.
Now let's take a switch. Feed it the same line cards,
run frame, and convert frame cells to 802.1q-tagged
GigE (native big MTU) to feed to the router. Dumb
switch is cheaper than router.
Backhaul two GigE (redundancy) links to the router.
Scales much better. One could even have a much bigger
switch, yet small dual-GigE core router.
2. It's wasteful.
Just how much Internet traffic is "local"? We're not
talking telephones, here. A little traffic _might_ go
switch-->router-->switch. But just how much does that
backhaul cost?
Aggregate as cheaply as possible... TDM was great when we didn't
have the CPU power to build a "big enough" packet-switched
network. But I think that time has passed. All IMHO, of course.
VA> Same story goes for "clusters" of backbone routers.
Because meshes (messes?) of cables are cool? ;-) Short of a "big
enough" router not existing... I don't know.
Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to
be blocked.
