4 ms·

All this is going to do is increase the efforts for open source switching firmware. We already have working data plane and control plane for selected systems, b

All this is going to do is increase the efforts for open source switching firmware. We already have working data plane and control plane for selected systems, but at this point it no longer is some far fetched dream.

dahfizz 7y ago
Is this a firmware issue? It seems to be a change in the OS. Regardless, ONIE + ONOS has been an excellent choice for a while now.
- naikrovek 7y ago
  The firmware on a Cisco switch IS the OS.
- oneplane 7y ago
  It's both and neither. The protection is usually not really implemented in the switching ASICs or any part of the data plane but only in the control plane as you can't influence the data plan anyway.
userbinator 7y ago
In the short term, it's also going to encourage people to just crack the protection (if it hasn't already been done).
dehrmann 7y ago
I used to work on drivers within IOS for a high-end switch. Between how complicated startup processes are, how specialized the hardware is, software workarounds for hardware issues, and the small demand for this, it doesn't seem likely. You're more likely to see Juniper take a different strategy to try to get more customers.
- snuxoll 7y ago
  Juniper is just as bad as Cisco when it comes to resold/gray-market gear, and I don’t see that changing. Sucks because I freaking love JunOS and it kicks the ass of anything Cisco has put out along with the myriad copycat designs from HPE/Arista/etc. I’m hoping someday cheap whitebox switches start entering the market, fs.com has a couple but they’re still out of reach for small shops and hobbyists compared to getting used gear off eBay.
- oneplane 7y ago
  Those switching ASICs are very complex and setup and bootstrapping is complicated on its own, but it's been done for (now legacy) switching and fabric ASICs and it's still being done for more current devices. A lot of effort is going to the 10G and 100G top of rack models because that's usually where you can backport to 1G/10G access switches. The core switches and more complex models have not seem much success.
segfaultbuserr 7y ago
It's very unlikely. You must consider that those routers aren't standardized embedded systems, but they are highly specialized with ASIC chips, in-house operation systems with its homebrew network stack. Even with perfect documentation, it's not something that you can just fire up a BSD on - getting it all supported and running requires many years of works. Many of the functionalities of those routers make special assumptions to boost performance and don't even fit into a standard network stack, so minimally, you would need to develop your own functional network stack for that. Or at least that's my impression of them, correct me if I'm misinformed.
- topranks 7y ago
  There are projects like ONIE that provide a common framework to bootstrap “white box” switches, and there are operating systems like Cumulus that can run on numerous platforms. We’re not there yet but the situation is definitely changing / improving.
  - kingosticks 7y ago
    > We’re not there yet but the situation is definitely changing / improving. But only if you can use that commodity hardware. If you need the stuff running on ASICs, it's as the parent describes and I don't see how that could change. Can whitebox solutions ever offer the same performance as boxes from cisco etc? If not then I'm not convinced there will be much more improvement coming.
    - halbritt 7y ago
      "whitebox solutions" are merchant silicon designs, typically Broadcom. Cisco's entire Nexus line of switches was there entry into the market with merchant silicon. Their costs were much lower, but their pricing per port stayed roughly the same as their Catalyst line driving up margins. Adoption was pretty lackluster however until they started offering massive discounts on the Nexus products. Anyway, you can generally get non-blocking line rate on all ports out of any Broadcom reference design. The only distinction between that and a Cisco is the how the device is managed.

dahfizz 7y ago

Is this a firmware issue? It seems to be a change in the OS. Regardless, ONIE + ONOS has been an excellent choice for a while now.

naikrovek 7y ago
The firmware on a Cisco switch IS the OS.
oneplane 7y ago
It's both and neither. The protection is usually not really implemented in the switching ASICs or any part of the data plane but only in the control plane as you can't influence the data plan anyway.

userbinator 7y ago

In the short term, it's also going to encourage people to just crack the protection (if it hasn't already been done).

dehrmann 7y ago

I used to work on drivers within IOS for a high-end switch. Between how complicated startup processes are, how specialized the hardware is, software workarounds for hardware issues, and the small demand for this, it doesn't seem likely. You're more likely to see Juniper take a different strategy to try to get more customers.

snuxoll 7y ago
Juniper is just as bad as Cisco when it comes to resold/gray-market gear, and I don’t see that changing. Sucks because I freaking love JunOS and it kicks the ass of anything Cisco has put out along with the myriad copycat designs from HPE/Arista/etc. I’m hoping someday cheap whitebox switches start entering the market, fs.com has a couple but they’re still out of reach for small shops and hobbyists compared to getting used gear off eBay.
oneplane 7y ago
Those switching ASICs are very complex and setup and bootstrapping is complicated on its own, but it's been done for (now legacy) switching and fabric ASICs and it's still being done for more current devices. A lot of effort is going to the 10G and 100G top of rack models because that's usually where you can backport to 1G/10G access switches. The core switches and more complex models have not seem much success.

segfaultbuserr 7y ago

It's very unlikely. You must consider that those routers aren't standardized embedded systems, but they are highly specialized with ASIC chips, in-house operation systems with its homebrew network stack. Even with perfect documentation, it's not something that you can just fire up a BSD on - getting it all supported and running requires many years of works. Many of the functionalities of those routers make special assumptions to boost performance and don't even fit into a standard network stack, so minimally, you would need to develop your own functional network stack for that. Or at least that's my impression of them, correct me if I'm misinformed.

topranks 7y ago
There are projects like ONIE that provide a common framework to bootstrap “white box” switches, and there are operating systems like Cumulus that can run on numerous platforms. We’re not there yet but the situation is definitely changing / improving.
- kingosticks 7y ago
  > We’re not there yet but the situation is definitely changing / improving. But only if you can use that commodity hardware. If you need the stuff running on ASICs, it's as the parent describes and I don't see how that could change. Can whitebox solutions ever offer the same performance as boxes from cisco etc? If not then I'm not convinced there will be much more improvement coming.
  - halbritt 7y ago
    "whitebox solutions" are merchant silicon designs, typically Broadcom. Cisco's entire Nexus line of switches was there entry into the market with merchant silicon. Their costs were much lower, but their pricing per port stayed roughly the same as their Catalyst line driving up margins. Adoption was pretty lackluster however until they started offering massive discounts on the Nexus products. Anyway, you can generally get non-blocking line rate on all ports out of any Broadcom reference design. The only distinction between that and a Cisco is the how the device is managed.