On 16/10/11 05:33, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> Hehe. "Tag switching will make core routers really cheap, you'll have >> a few really big PE routers only". Wasn't that the line we were sold >> with TDP? > > And they totally could be too, if anyone bothered to actually make them. > You don't even need to spin custom ASICs (one could argue that their > might not be enough business to justify it anyways), label switching is > so easy from a hardware perspective that it's not even funny. Everyone > and their mother is busy churning out Broadcom Trident+ based 64x10G 1U > boxes right now (see: Juniper QFX, etc), and at a price of a couple > hundred bucks a 10G even on the high end. Why aren't these boxes making > great LSRs?
The chip with massive potential that's got me excited is the BCM56846, 64 10g or 16 40g (or a mix), essentially all on a single chip, no need for external PHY's. What's needed is for an OEM to build a generic router chassis that has separate control plane, power, and forwarding modules that can be swapped as needed. Potentially ATCA might be a good platform for this But without someone building the full protocol suite already this might be a hard business proposal. > The problem is, the software side of MPLS (i.e. all of the associated > protocols surrounding it) is so complicated, only Cisco and Juniper have > figured out how to actually implement it correctly (and that is only > because they wrote most of it :P). All the hardware in the world doesn't > help you if you don't have the right software, and C/J shockingly don't > want to make a $10k box that obsoletes the need for a $1mil T-series. > This is why OpenFlow has them all running scared. :) There are other potential solutions, for example: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/presentations/Monday/NANOG50.Talk17.swhyte_Opensource_LSR_Presentation.pdf > The PTX is the first thing to actually attempt to be a label switching > router only, but even that one is a) still vaporware, and b) designed to > be sold to only a handful of super large carriers, and still at fairly > premium prices. All they're trying to do is keep the T-series business > unit from losing money to the MX-series business unit (since the MX is > just as capable of doing everything T does w/MPLS as a core router, but > at 1/4 the price), they aren't ACTUALLY trying to make a cheaper LSR. :) I do object to the "still vaporware", "not due to ship until the end of the year" is closer. The main threat to the T-series is that 10ge slowly removing the need for Sonet/SDH, and if all you need is 10g LAN-PHY the MX with the 16-port MIC does it nicely. -- Julien Goodwin Studio442 "Blue Sky Solutioneering"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
