3 ms·
10tb sounds like a big scary number but when you think about it that's only 100 100gb ports. It should be no surprise to you that a company making their own swi
by thedance 7y ago
10tb sounds like a big scary number but when you think about it that's only 100 100gb ports. It should be no surprise to you that a company making their own switches and NICs, where every RPC is individually authenticated and possibly also encrypted with session keys specific to the peer has no need of vendor "acceleration".
https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/google-cloud-networking-in-depth-how-andromeda-2-2-enables-high-throughput-vms https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/networking/google-clo...
https://cloud.google.com/security/encryption-in-transit/application-layer-transport-security https://cloud.google.com/security/encryption-in-transit/appl...
- Cyph0n 7y ago10 Tbps is not a scary number? I am honestly still in awe of how such a small box can route an entire city’s worth of traffic. Different perspectives I suppose. Regarding your points: I am not sure I completely follow. Firstly, as far as I know, Google does not make its own switching or routing ASICs. Secondly, virtually all switching and routing ASICs are highly programmable. So if you need a custom protocol, you can implement it using the vendor’s microcode (e.g., P4). In other words, you are not limited to the protocols that the vendor has implemented. Given the above, I don’t see what kind of technical requirements Google has that would disqualify the use of routing ASICs.
- thedance 7y agoWe obviously have very different perspectives on this issue. I think given Google's architecture, where a host handles millions of flows and they are all individually keyed, just the key management nightmare alone would be enough to discredit the idea of offloading crypto to an ASIC in a separate box.