On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Dan White wrote: > has the appearance of you struggling to hold on to an idea that may have been > more true in the past,
It's true today, and I'm not 'struggling to hold' onto anything. Take any software-based router from Cisco or Juniper or whomever (if Juniper still make software-based routers, I don't know if they do or not), packet it until it falls over, then repeat the process with a properly-configured hardware-based router from the same manufacturer - you can demonstrate the validity of the proposition for yourself, as the hardware-based router can handle considerably more traffic, whereas the software-based router will pitch over as a result of a surprisingly small amount of traffic. > and less true today, as is evident based on the input from other list > participants. Input based upon experience which is seemingly heavily weighted towards the lower end, rather than the higher end, of network speeds and routing platforms - and which doesn't seem to encompass much examination of the ability of said lower-end devices to maintain availability in the face of direct attack. It can be quite interesting to take a packet-generator to a software-based router and see just how easy it is to make it fall over, and then repeat the experience with a hardware-based router, and consider the implications thereof, even at relatively low bandwidth/throughput. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. -- H.L. Mencken
