Software router state of the art

Seth Mattinen sethm at
Mon Jul 28 21:51:13 UTC 2008

Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Rev. Jeffrey Paul wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:08:32PM +0100, michael.dillon at 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 

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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list