Well said, Jürgen! -mel via cell
> On Oct 2, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch <j...@anexia.at> wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > sorry, this was probably sent to quick ... let me please explain my POV of > your statement: > > I want to concentrate my detailed answer only to the backbone situation which > is often handled by the 6500/7600 - I guess all of us know that the 6500/7600 > has a ton of additional features ... > > > 6-7 years in the past carriers (and/or big ISPs) had only n*1G backbone > capacities built with platforms that only had n*100M interfaces another 3-5 > years before. Their only invest in these 3-5 years was to add the Gig line > cards, install some software updates and add new fibre optics (GBICs). > Chassis, cabling, management interfaces etc could be remain in the cabinet - > they only had to replace ONE line card (let's say for a few thousand bucks) > and with this invest they were able to scale up their capacities. Of course: > at some point they also had to replace the SUPs, PSUs, FANs, etc. But the > invest in the surrounding stuff is nothing compared with completely new > machines. > > So what all these companies did was buying a machine with an basic > configuration and since 10(!) years they are able to expand this machines > with (more or less) small and cheap upgrades. > > In backbone situations the 6500/7600 are definitely at the end of the > resources the platform can provide. Most of the carriers (and of course also > the bigger ISPs) had a real chance to evaluate a new model/vendor to ran > future networks (with possibly also a very good scale-up path and scaling- > and upgrade-options). Most of the before mentioned are already in an > migration process (let's take a look at Seabone ... they are migration from > Cisco to a mix of Juniper and Huawei). > > Summary: there are strict limitations within the Cisco 6500/7600 platform and > these limitations forces the big players to move this boxes out (or move them > into other parts of their network). The limitation with 1Mio routes is not a > secret and the admins of these boxes decide what they want to use (e.g. 768k > routes for IPv4 unicast and 256k routes for MPLS+VRF, etc). If the global > routing table reaches the 768k mark (I guess this will happen in the next > 12-18months) most of the boxes will crash again (as it happened in Aug 2014). > > > Regarding the words "I have a small router which handles multiple full tables > ...": push and pull a few full tables at the same time and you'll see what's > happening: the CCRs are SLOW. And why? Because the software is not as good as > it could be: the BGP daemon uses only one core of a 36(?) core CPU. Same > problem in the past with the EoIP daemon (not sure if they fixed it on the > CCRs - they fixed it on x86). > > Routerboards are nice and cool and to be honest: I'm a big fan of this stuff > (also Ubiquiti). But with this boxes you're not able to ran a stable > enterprise class carrier network with >99,5% uptime. And that’s thei MAIN > reason why "the old shit" is still online :). > > Hopefully my words explained my hard "you know nothing" blabla ? > > Best regards > > > Jürgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett > Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 21:33 > Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Betreff: Re: AW: /27 the new /24 > > Hrm. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jürgen Jaritsch" <j...@anexia.at> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:25:10 PM > Subject: AW: /27 the new /24 > >> Stop using old shit. > > Sorry, but the truth is: you have no idea about how earning revenue works and > you obviously also have no idea about carrier grade networks. > > > > > Jürgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Hammett > Gesendet: Freitag, 02. Oktober 2015 20:38 > An: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Betreff: Re: /27 the new /24 > > Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small business > with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big business > with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support big router. > > I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a need to > throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled with the > times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something more > power, space, heat, etc. efficient. > > > I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco > routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so > they weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll > be worse in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old setup > consumed at most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in power... and > is worse. > > Stop using old shit. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM > Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 > >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: >> How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router >> I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If >> someone's network can't match that today, should I really have >> any pity for them? > > Hi Mike, > > The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more > precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap) > end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a > general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB). > They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large > routing tables at the same time. > > For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out > https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see > folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content > Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and > SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an > O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural > differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your > $100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. > > Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100 > router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers. > That makes it expensive. > > Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the > systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement: > http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > >
