PacketShader

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Aug 23 15:15:01 CDT 2010


On Aug 23, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:

> On 8/23/2010 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
>> if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
> 
> I disagree here.  Core routing isn't purchased based on cost, it's purchased based on support.  People have not adopted Vayetta, or Mikrotik or many of the other small routing platforms which are in fact MUCH cheaper than the bridge or the tree (cisco or juniper), and the reason is simply support.
> 
I disagree. Core routing is about performance, and, the bridge and the tree simply outperform Vayetta
and Mikrotik on more realistic small packet sizes when it comes to forwarding rate, interface density,
and other issues.

Outside the core, you might be right about it being a question of support.

> If my router breaks beyond my ability to fix it I have a certified engineer (of some value or other) at my site with parts to fix it within 4 hours.  This is why people go with Cisco and Juniper.  It's also a mechanism of CYA.  Would we rather tell our boss that the company has responded and dropped the replacement part in the mail, or that a technician from the router supplier is on their way and will be here very shortly, and ooh, by the way, you did recommend redundant hardware when the piece that broke was purchased, and it was available at a discount.
> 
That doesn't help as much as you might hope. I've had situations where it tool (bridge or tree) several months to resolve a
problem. I have a case open with one of those vendors now for a PMTU-D problem which has been ongoing for many months.
Often, I get an update saying it's been escalated to engineering, several weeks go by and I get a request for information
already provided.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list