Re: 10GE router resource
Actually, soon this will no longer be true. Vyatta's new platform, Glendale, will be moving to Quagga. Quagga is much more stable, and slow-moving compared to Xorp, which makes me slightly more comfortable (less breakage between versions). There are some major features lacking inside of the platform. For example, it lacks the ability to do BFD, BGP over IPSec, Multicast, etc... This major lack of features makes this a hard to deploy piece of software. I am sure with enough customers Vyatta would be able to catch up to Cisco. Also, from a viewpoint of hardware, x86 is a fairly decent platform. I can stuff 40 (4x10GigE multiplex with a switch) 1 GigE ports in it. Though, the way that Linux works, it cannot handle high packet rates. If you are planning on handling large flows with mostly large packets, you are alright for the most part. Just be warned. Peter Wohlers wrote: Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: People rolling their own router are not the only ones who want to do 10G on Linux. speaking of which, has anybody run xorp in production? it looks as much like JunOS as quagga/zebra looks like IOS. if click works on current hardware and if the xorp/click integration is good, this could be a great science fair project for smaller network operators who need big PPS. Vyatta is built on top of xorp. You can download the bootable iso from their site and take a low-commitment look: http://www.vyatta.com/download/index.php --Peter -- +1.925.202.9485 Sargun Dhillon deCarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.decarta.com
Re: 10GE router resource
I wonder how difficult it would be to integrate such a device on to an x86 board cheaply. Something like NetFPGA (http://netfpga.org/) would be an interesting place to start. The board has on board SRAM, a bit of DRAM, an FPGA, and 2 GigE interfaces. I know it definitely isn't normal for Network Operators to fund research like this, but it would still be fairly interesting if there was an Open Router Consortium (something for Vyatta to start?) with hardware acceleration to X86 routers. Possibly even making Quagga a mainstream control plane. Right now Quagga is controlled by a few engineers from Sun. This nearly produces a conflict on interest (Sun used to have their own routing platform). Anyways, to end my rambling... As network operators would you finance a low, medium end router with decent ROI. The question for developers (Vyatta primarily), could you do what Digium did for Asterisk--become business front, and provide platforms for Asterisk deployment in the enterprise--for Quagga, Linux, etc? William Herrin wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Sargun Dhillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: from a viewpoint of hardware, x86 is a fairly decent platform. I can stuff 40 (4x10GigE multiplex with a switch) 1 GigE ports in it. Though, the way that Linux works, it cannot handle high packet rates. Correction: The way DRAM works, it cannot handle high packet rates. Also note that the PCI-X bus tops out in the 7 to 8 gbps range and it's half-duplex. High-rate routers try to keep the packets in an SRAM queue and instead of looking up destinations in a DRAM-based radix tree, they use a special memory device called a TCAM. http://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro.html Regards. Bill Herrin -- +1.925.202.9485 Sargun Dhillon deCarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.decarta.com
Re: US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity?
Drew Weaver wrote: Howdy, I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific connectivity being what it is these days that getting reliable (i.e. low latency 200, low packet loss 5% total round-trip) to countries such as AE and others is kind of a “shot in the dark”. However, I wanted to ping the list and see if anyone has had ‘better luck/worse luck’ with particular transit providers. We’re currently utilizing Time Warner Telecom, Level3, and Global Crossing as our transit partners and we’re shopping for a fourth at this time, we would really like to find a transit provider with ‘better’ international presence. Any suggestions based on experience? Thanks, -Drew As a test point let's try: 212.58.224.131 That's the BBC. Posting traceroutes would be the best. Here is mine from internap: core1.t6-1-bbnet1.sje.pnap.net 0.0% 2895 2.1 21.3 1.9 1671. 101.6 xe-1-3.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 1.7% 2895 2.1 25.7 2.0 1301. 92.6 xe-1-2.r03.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.8% 2895 2.2 25.5 2.0 1764. 108.7 sjo-bb1-link.telia.net 0.0% 2895 2.3 15.3 2.1 1680. 109.5 nyk-bb1-link.telia.net 0.2% 2895 73.8 86.1 73.7 1596. 101.4 ldn-bb1-pos7-1-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 143.1 155.5 141.8 1551. 100.4 ldn-bb1-link.telia.net ldn-bb1-link.telia.net 9. ldn-b1-pos3-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.9 163.2 141.8 1470. 99.8 ldn-b1-link.telia.net 10. siemens-118436-ldn-b1.c.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.8 165.2 141.9 1470. 106.4 11. 212.58.238.153 0.1% 2895 143.3 157.7 141.9 1386. 97.5 12. rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk 0.1% 2895 146.3 156.0 141.8 1636. 99.4 -- Sargun Dhillon deCarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.decarta.com
Re: US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity?
Drew Weaver wrote: How about to this IP? 62.150.200.10 -Original Message- From: Sargun Dhillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:58 PM To: Drew Weaver Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: Re: US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity? Drew Weaver wrote: Howdy, I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific connectivity being what it is these days that getting reliable (i.e. low latency 200, low packet loss 5% total round-trip) to countries such as AE and others is kind of a shot in the dark. However, I wanted to ping the list and see if anyone has had 'better luck/worse luck' with particular transit providers. We're currently utilizing Time Warner Telecom, Level3, and Global Crossing as our transit partners and we're shopping for a fourth at this time, we would really like to find a transit provider with 'better' international presence. Any suggestions based on experience? Thanks, -Drew As a test point let's try: 212.58.224.131 That's the BBC. Posting traceroutes would be the best. Here is mine from internap: core1.t6-1-bbnet1.sje.pnap.net 0.0% 2895 2.1 21.3 1.9 1671. 101.6 xe-1-3.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 1.7% 2895 2.1 25.7 2.0 1301. 92.6 xe-1-2.r03.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.8% 2895 2.2 25.5 2.0 1764. 108.7 sjo-bb1-link.telia.net 0.0% 2895 2.3 15.3 2.1 1680. 109.5 nyk-bb1-link.telia.net 0.2% 2895 73.8 86.1 73.7 1596. 101.4 ldn-bb1-pos7-1-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 143.1 155.5 141.8 1551. 100.4 ldn-bb1-link.telia.net ldn-bb1-link.telia.net 9. ldn-b1-pos3-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.9 163.2 141.8 1470. 99.8 ldn-b1-link.telia.net 10. siemens-118436-ldn-b1.c.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.8 165.2 141.9 1470. 106.4 11. 212.58.238.153 0.1% 2895 143.3 157.7 141.9 1386. 97.5 12. rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk 0.1% 2895 146.3 156.0 141.8 1636. 99.4 -- Sargun Dhillon deCarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.decarta.com ATT: Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 200/203/208 ms Global Crossing: 283 msec SAVVIS: 245.461 msec QWEST: min/avg/max = 312/313/317 UUNET: 379 msec Level3: min/avg/median/max/mdev/stddev = 244/252.8/252/280/2.332/9.432 ms I just used the looking glasses to check latency -- Sargun Dhillon deCarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.decarta.com
