/27 the new /24

Fri Oct 2 19:31:59 UTC 2015

>From a Slack chat I'm in with a few other Mikrotik guys (one of whom seems to have a direct line to get feature requests done) : 

"Something has changed at Mikrotik. It's like they want to be great again." 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mel Beckman" <mel at beckman.org> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 2:22:29 PM 
Subject: Re: /27 the new /24 

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/> 
> 