Vyatta as a BRAS

Mon Jul 19 01:07:36 UTC 2010

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Brett Frankenberger
<rbf+nanog at panix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:13:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>> This document supports that. If the definition of a software router is
>> one that doesn't have a fixed at the factory forwarding function, then
>> the ASR1K is one.
>
> The code running in the ASICs on line cards in 6500-series
> chassis isn't fixed at the factory.  Same with the code running on the
> PFCs in those boxes.  There's not a tremendous amount of flexibility to
> make changes after the fact, because the code is so tightly integrated
> with the hardware, but there is some.
>
> (Not saying the 6500 is a software-based platform.  It's pretty clearly
> a hardware-based platform under most peoples' definition.  But:  the
> line is blurry.)
>
>     -- Brett
>
>

Surely the important point for most forwarding engines is that there
is isolation between control, management and forwarding planes?

If I'm looking for a box, I want line rate forwarding on all
interfaces. I want stateless ACLs and policing functions on the
forwarding plane. I want to use those functions to protect the control
and management planes. I want the control plane to cope with the
required amount of forwarding state and churn. I want the management
plane to be somewhat as capable as the Linux tools I run to maintain
the network.

I don't honestly care whether it is a single cpu, multi-core
multi-cpu, ASIC or NPU.

That being said, for the networks I help maintain, the C6K meets most
of those requirements. I think the N7K is movement in the right
direction. I consider both to be L2/L3 switches :-)

-- 
Tim:>