Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 20:11:50 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@pipeline.ch> To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> Cc: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>, Luigi Iannone <Luigi.Iannone@lip6.fr>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MPLS Message-ID: <3CF519E6.C649CA25@pipeline.ch> References: <Pine.NEB.4.44.0205290915060.28431-100000@tibre.lip6.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205291108080.7798-100000@scribble.fsn.hu> <3CF4A64A.EE220611@pipeline.ch> <200205291413.g4TEDLRG075458@whizzo.transsys.com> <3CF4E483.2510639@pipeline.ch> <20020529175205.GJ33611@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:24:03PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > If there is no kind of software involved on the forwarding plane > > then I don't know how the control plane can communicate via ethernet > > with the line cards... The internal communication in the router is > > via ethernet. > > The FreeBSD based part runs on an i386 piece called the Routing Rngine, > which connects to the "rest of the system" (SFM SSB SCB or FEC boards > depending on the model) via FastE (fxp to be precise). The Routing Engine > runs the routing protocols and CLI, with all those nice FreeBSD benefits > like stability, protected process memory, extensive debugging tools, etc > (things that other vendors software lacks :P). After all the routing > information is taken in, and all the policy rules considered, a forwarding > table is constructed and passed over the ethernet link to the rest of the > system. > > From there, the Internet Processor 2 ASIC (which DOES run microcode) uses > the forwarding information as well as the firewall rules which have been > passed to it, to look at the headers of every packet and come back with a > destination interface (or discard). The linecards and FPCs take care of > putting the packet into shared memory, and forwarding it. > > An elegant solution to the control and forwarding planes, combining the > best of all worlds, if you ask me. I agree. > > I agree with the ASIC hardware. But the BGP implementation smells > > awfully like gated (Nexthop). Anyway, a BGP deamon isn't that hard > > to write. > > As someone who has actually written a BGP implementation from scratch, let > me be the first to tell you that you are full of shit. BGP is a very Thank you. You are so cute today... > complex beast, and Juniper has spent a good amount of time making what is > without a doubt the most powerful BGP implementation currently available. Bwah... It lacks things like transparent-nexthop and transparent-as which is quite useful in Route Servers and such. Don't get me wrong. I don't say it's bad or instable or whatever but it's not perfect either. -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CF519E6.C649CA25>