Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 11:51:11 -0400 From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) To: Andrew McRae <amcrae@cisco.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routers and FreeBSD (let's have a bakeoff) Message-ID: <199605261551.LAA06443@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A McRae writes..... >I presented the old 286 as something I had done, not as a prime >example of current technology :-) >I certainly agree that PC technology can do the job of a small >router; I have done that myself with other Unix workstations, >as well as FreeBSD machines. I have strived to always follow the >John Mashey rule of claims - always back up what you say with >actual, observed evidence, and always disclose the parameters >of the test. I don't doubt that your quoted configuration >works in real life, but it depends on what you call `handle'. >Give me a observed pps on each interface, using mimimum sized packets. >Ethernet can run around 13 or 14 Kpps, and a full duplex T1 will >run around 7200 pps. The industry accepted minimum sized packet >is 64 byte ether, 52 bytes serial (ether - mac header + serial encap). >Can a PC really handle a total of 7200 + 14K + 14K = 35200 pps? >I don't know - it's actually something I can test really easily, >and it would be an interesting exercise for you to send me >a sample config and then I can have a bakeoff in the lab. >BTW this kind of config is very low end. I am much more interested >if you put a couple of Fast Ethernets in and then run a 45 Mbit T3. >*That's* a serious configuration :-) Probably not, but its not the real world, so who cares. The bottom line is in real applications, which is why the pps numbers for routers are so misleading. When you talk about real transfers (like workstations doing real things like FTP downloads and heavy Web access, then you can impress me. You cant impress me with a box thats speced for 100,000 pps (of course thats fully loaded with 20 T1 and 10 ethernet interfaces, which makes the numbers meaningless) but it chokes if you try to filter 512K of flood pings. You clearly want to compare a PC to a 75XX series, an argument which you will invariably win. You are clearly not interested in talking about the vulnerability of your lower end products, a subject which is of much more interest to a whopping majority of the marketplace. Just for fun though, whats the mininum cost for a unit with two Fast Ethernets and a dual T1 and enough memory (at least 32 meg) to be multi-homed running BGP4? PC cost is under $2500. and it does quite nicely. > >If people are interested, I will publish the results. >Again, full disclosure of the environment is important. > >>If you're really the hardware guru you say then you know how a >>25XX dual ethernet fares in this test........ > >Well, Dennis, let's not start getting personal.. I never claimed to be a >hardware guru, and I certainly am not going to start now. >I also know little about 2500's. The big iron is what >I do and am interested in. I consider the access stuff fairly dinky :-) and the most lucrative. > >Let state *again* for the record - in the access arena, I have >no doubt that intermingled among the ciscos, Ascends, Annexes, >Bays and myriad other vendors, BSDi and FreeBSD PCs can stand >their own, and even be a *better* platform in some cases; perhaps >cisco should put together a platform like this as a low end >small ISP box, and put some of it's IOS protocol handling in it, >kind of like what we're doing with Microsoft's NT. Yes, we're very worried about NT outperforming us! :-) >>you're the one that said that "PCs cant replace routers". Is a 25xx not >>a router? Your definition of a router changes from paragraph to >>paragraph. Maybe thats the problem. > >Well, I did say `core router'. I never said that PCs can't replace >routers; I have done that myself. Just be careful when you start >comparing PCs to the serious routers; that's a different scale of >things. Again, I'll say: use the right tool for the job. >Routers are like computers - there is a wide spectrum in >terms of price and performance. A serious router is one that carries my data. It starts in a small office and ends in the backbone, but there are 1000 times more small routers than large ones. To dismiss them as "trivial" is to ignore 99% of the market, which Im sure you dont want to do. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous PC Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD and LINUX.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605261551.LAA06443>