[j-nsp] TCAM full on EX8200?

[Julien Goodwin]

On 16/10/11 05:33, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> Hehe. "Tag switching will make core routers really cheap, you'll have 
>> a few really big PE routers only". Wasn't that the line we were sold 
>> with TDP?
> 
> And they totally could be too, if anyone bothered to actually make them. 
> You don't even need to spin custom ASICs (one could argue that their 
> might not be enough business to justify it anyways), label switching is 
> so easy from a hardware perspective that it's not even funny. Everyone 
> and their mother is busy churning out Broadcom Trident+ based 64x10G 1U 
> boxes right now (see: Juniper QFX, etc), and at a price of a couple 
> hundred bucks a 10G even on the high end. Why aren't these boxes making 
> great LSRs?

The chip with massive potential that's got me excited is the BCM56846,
64 10g or 16 40g (or a mix), essentially all on a single chip, no need
for external PHY's.

What's needed is for an OEM to build a generic router chassis that has
separate control plane, power, and forwarding modules that can be
swapped as needed. Potentially ATCA might be a good platform for this

But without someone building the full protocol suite already this might
be a hard business proposal.

> The problem is, the software side of MPLS (i.e. all of the associated 
> protocols surrounding it) is so complicated, only Cisco and Juniper have 
> figured out how to actually implement it correctly (and that is only 
> because they wrote most of it :P). All the hardware in the world doesn't 
> help you if you don't have the right software, and C/J shockingly don't 
> want to make a $10k box that obsoletes the need for a $1mil T-series. 
> This is why OpenFlow has them all running scared. :)

There are other potential solutions, for example:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/presentations/Monday/NANOG50.Talk17.swhyte_Opensource_LSR_Presentation.pdf

> The PTX is the first thing to actually attempt to be a label switching 
> router only, but even that one is a) still vaporware, and b) designed to 
> be sold to only a handful of super large carriers, and still at fairly 
> premium prices. All they're trying to do is keep the T-series business 
> unit from losing money to the MX-series business unit (since the MX is 
> just as capable of doing everything T does w/MPLS as a core router, but 
> at 1/4 the price), they aren't ACTUALLY trying to make a cheaper LSR. :)

I do object to the "still vaporware", "not due to ship until the end of
the year" is closer. The main threat to the T-series is that 10ge
slowly removing the need for Sonet/SDH, and if all you need is 10g
LAN-PHY the MX with the 16-port MIC does it nicely.

-- 
Julien Goodwin
Studio442
"Blue Sky Solutioneering"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20111016/a67e7307/attachment.pgp>