Hi, On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:04:20AM +0100, Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > I'll let you know how we go; but yes, all that RAM and CPU that will be > > available in a 1U server vs. a (decent) router like the ASR1001 or Juniper > > > RE-1800X4 is too hard to resist. > > Or even imagine a pool of these geographically distributed with multiple > links to core at each site. > VM-overlay on the pool and run RRs on top of that and you'll end up with RRs > infrastructure that is never down and will scale endlessly.
My imagination works a bit differently from yours, it seems.
My imagination sees "outage in the VM management infrastructure which leads
to all RRs being down at the same time, and no network left to bring them
back"... *shiver*
(OTOH using the technologies Mark mentioned, having a VM layer makes sense
- if the "routing engine" is not "software run on top of a general purpose
OS" but "a routing engine VM running on top of a hypervisor"... but then
more along the lines of what Nick proposed, with a dedicated metal running
the hypervisor, and no fancy VM management-move-around-automatism engine
playing tricks in the background)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgph7PXFMBqrC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
