> The main issues I have with zebra are:
> 1. The need to install an OS on the host.
> 2. The need to harden it.
> 3. The possible hard disk failure (having *nix on ATA flash is no better
> given the actual limits in the number of times one can write to flash).
There are linux and freebsd distributions that aim to minimize the "OS"
layer to suit router better. Linux also has a filesystem that spreads
writes across the flash area, so you are not likely to write single block
100000 times in your life.
<snip>
>
> How does zebra deal with QOS/priority/custom/queuing/LLQ? With CAR? With
> IDS? With route redistribution to/from OSPF or ISIS? With multichassis
> multilink PPP? With spanning tree on multiple VLANs? With peer groups?
> With SNMP?
>
> How does the host deal with 802.1q trunks? With Channel interfaces? With
> hot-swapping a line card? With TCP MD5?
>
> These are the questions I ask myself when I pick a routing platform.
> Cheap is of no use to me if it does not do what I need.
The above are not Zebra issues: It is the host platform.
For qos/priority/custom queueing/CAR, Linux has tc, and FreeBSD has ALTQ,
which in my opinion, are at least as good as vendor C and vendor J
equivalents.
For everything else, I'll answer for Linux host platform, as that's what
I'm most familiar with:
IDS = snort, again, competive to proprietary solutions
ISIS = beta status on quagga, not recommended.
Route redistribution = yes
multichassis ppp = no
spanning tree = yes
per-vlan-spanning-tree = yes
dot1q = yes
hotswap = *should* work, with PCI hot-plug, but you may have to
make certain configuration changes manually post-swap
TCP MD5 = yes in 2.6
