The Making of a Router

Baldur Norddahl baldur.norddahl at
Fri Dec 27 21:40:36 UTC 2013

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Justin M. Streiner <streiner at
> wrote:

> If you want to use servers as routers, that's your choice.  I think what
> most people in the thread have been saying is not to use one server (or
> even a pair of servers) for everything.  It's one thing if server XYZ goes
> down and some web services are offline.  It's another thing entirely if
> that same server goes down and your entire business is offline.

You need at least two servers. Much of the functional separation can be
achieved by using virtualisation: Two virtual servers per function, but
only two physical servers. It is a lot cheaper to just get two beefy
servers than to invest in expensive 10G routers. Later on it is easy to
move the VMs to more servers if needed.

The exception might be any function that moves packets. It is hard to get
the necessary performance from dedicated hardware. Trying to do it from a
VM will not help. In that case I would dedicate two physical machines to
the purpose. However I am actually trying to avoid having the server move
packets - I want to use an OpenFlow switch to do the brunt work. Running a
BGP daemon on a VM to remote control an OpenFlow switch should not be a



More information about the NANOG mailing list