[j-nsp] ACX50xx l2circuit counters

[Mark Tinka]

On 21/Jun/16 12:09, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On 21 June 2016 at 09:41, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
>> To be honest, as I've said a few times before, I'm still nowhere being
>> comfortable buying a router that uses merchant silicon.
> Aren't devices merchant, own ASIC/NPU is an exception.
>
> >From Cisco own stuff is
> CSR-1, QFP (well, both are built on Tensilica)
> Magic FPGA gen1+gen2
> Most catalysts (Are all?)
>
> Merchant stuff is:
> ASR9k
> ISRs
> Lot of nexuses
>
>> I know that while I'm not aware of the full list of what might not work,
>> I know there is bound to be a lot of surprises.
> Why would different logo on chip imply better applicability for your
> application?

I would not say it's better, but the vendors have much more leeway in
fixing issues when it's their own silicon vs. something they can't
change after it enters the box.

The ME2600X from Cisco, which is/was a good little FTTH box, was such
for me. I ended up ditching it because they could not do a lot of things
I expected due to the Broadcom chip they had in there. Suffice it to
say, the box was pulled from the portfolio a year later.


>  I think you maybe extrapolating too much data from your
> experience/anecdotes.

In our world (certainly mine), experience gives you a lot - after all
the slideware, snake oil and incorrect documentation.

And yes, that experience includes pre-purchase testing.


> Regardless of the logo, you need to do your due diligence and know
> exactly that everything you're going to need, work /NOW/, not 6 months
> from now.

I look at both; now as much as the future.


> That seems very flexible definition. How do we define merchant and
> custom, how much IP can you buy, before it becomes merchant? Is EZchip
> NP3c custom or merchant? Is Alcatel FP3 custom or merchant?
> Would we know if Juniper had bought 20% 60% 90% of IP for Trio from
> someone? I don't believe they did, but would we know? Would it matter?

Well, we don't really.

The point is that if the chip was designed in-house from the ground-up
(which the vendors can admit to), and that features can be flexibly
manipulated in-house (which the vendors can admit to as well), I'm fine
with that. It has worked for me thus far.

In-house design does mean external IP was not used. It means that
feature and forwarding performance have the vendor's stamp of approval,
which I have never got from a vendor when they 100% outsource the silicon.

Mark.