Software router state of the art

Seth Mattinen sethm at rollernet.us
Mon Jul 28 16:51:13 CDT 2008


Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Rev. Jeffrey Paul wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:08:32PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>  
>>> But if you want free suggestions, then you'll have to put up with
>>> half answers, vendor fanboys, and the usual ruckus of NANOG.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> As much as I hate to contribute to the problem, I'd like to point out
>> that the barrage of useless, off-topic, empty traffic on this list in
>> the last week is, in my estimation, quite a bit above the "usual" ruckus
>> of NANOG.
>>
>> While I'm not one to thunk down the rulebook, can you all collectively
>> knock it off?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -jp
> I haven't followed the other threads in the last week, but I don't think 
> that a discussion of routers is off topic.  While Michael's opinion was 
> expressed in a fairly tongue-in-cheek method as would be required by his 
> response, I don't see anything offtopic, perhaps just hotly worded.
> 

I wasn't too thrilled about being accused of OS politics when I was 
genuinely concerned about deploying a software router based on things 
I've heard in passing or read about here previously. It *is* nice to 
know that someone found out that FreeBSD 7 hates OSPF - since I actually 
use OSPF - and that would have tormented me for a while had I gone that 
route.

Back to the topic at hand, unfortunately I wouldn't have the luxury of 
converting T1/T3 to Ethernet. I've used cards from Digium and Sangoma in 
the past for T1 and been relatively pleased, although older Digium cards 
hated sharing an IRQ with anything.

~Seth




More information about the NANOG mailing list