/27 the new /24

Fri Oct 2 19:27:08 UTC 2015

Can I suggest you not use a $1000 software driven device to do the job of a
500 watt device on a 10 Gbps network?

Mikrotik has its faults, yes, but it certainly has a place as well.  That
just happens to not be where the $4,000 Cisco is.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:

> Often I find that used Cisco gear is more reliable and just as affordable
> than newer gear with that tasty, flakey crust. I've had a terrible time
> with CCRs falling over with 1GB traffic while Cisco L3 3750s don't even
> breathe hard at 10Gbps. I see no reason to use anything like 2500w even
> with Cisco gear. A dual Cisco 3750 stack consumes maybe 500W. Cisco
> firmware, for all its faults, seems to be much better tested than
> Mikrotik's.
>
> I once asked Mikrotik's support engineers how they performed regression
> testing, and they said "because we are a small, agile, disruptive innovator
> we don't follow old-school testing regimens. We're more interested in
> shipping affordable product." That's also their excuse for poor
> documentation.
>
> From what I can see, "small, agile, disruptive innovator" is an excuse
> newer networking companies often give for "sloppy, poorly tested,
> ill-conceived" product development.
>
>
>
>  -mel beckman
>
> > On Oct 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> >
> > Chances are the revenue passing scales to some degree as well. Small
> business with small bandwidth needs buys small and has small revenue. Big
> business with big bandwidth needs buys big and has big revenue to support
> big router.
> >
> > I can think of no reason why ten years goes by and you haven't had a
> need to throw out the old network for new. If your business hasn't scaled
> with the times, then you need to get rid of your Cat 6500 and get something
> more power, space, heat, etc. efficient.
> >
> >
> > I saw someone replace a stack of Mikrotik CCRs with a pair of old Cisco
> routers. I don't know what they were at the moment, but they had GBICs, so
> they weren't exactly new. Each router had two 2500w power supplies. They'll
> be worse in every way (other than *possibly* BGP convergence). The old
> setup consumed at most 300 watts. The new setup requires $500/month in
> power... and is worse.
> >
> > Stop using old shit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Midwest Internet Exchange
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>
> > To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net>
> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org>
> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:09:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: /27 the new /24
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> >> How many routers out there have this limitation? A $100 router
> >> I bought ten years ago could manage many full tables. If
> >> someone's network can't match that today, should I really have
> >> any pity for them?
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > The technology doesn't work the way you think it does. Or more
> > precisely, it only works the way you think it does on small (cheap)
> > end-user routers. Those routers do everything in software on a
> > general-purpose CPU using radix tries for the forwarding table (FIB).
> > They don't have to (and can't) handle both high data rates and large
> > routing tables at the same time.
> >
> > For a better understanding how the big iron works, check out
> > https://www.pagiamtzis.com/cam/camintro/ . You'll occasionally see
> > folks here talk about TCAM. This stands for Ternary Content
> > Addressable Memory. It's a special circuit, different from DRAM and
> > SRAM, used by most (but not all) big iron routers. The TCAM permits an
> > O(1) route lookup instead of an O(log n) lookup. The architectural
> > differences which balloon from there move the router cost from your
> > $100 router into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
> >
> > Your BGP advertisement doesn't just have to be carried on your $100
> > router. It also has to be carried on the half-million-dollar routers.
> > That makes it expensive.
> >
> > Though out of date, this paper should help you better understand the
> > systemic cost of a BGP route advertisement:
> > http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> > Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
> >
>