4 ms·

Arista switches are switches with the actual data path in silicon but with the CNC running on an onboard processor running linux. It's cool, it's both stupidly

by asharp 15y ago

Arista switches are switches with the actual data path in silicon but with the CNC running on an onboard processor running linux. It's cool, it's both stupidly fast (wormhole switched, etc) and very configurable. Just costs an arm and a leg.

nl 15y ago
I think that's pretty much what would be expected at this stage. High-performance devices will probably require custom silicon for a while yet, but they can charge a premium. Lower end devices will probably have less custom silicon, more software and be cheaper.
- asharp 15y ago
  Basically, yeah. All lower end devices end up with basically same batch of ASIC, anyway just due to cost. Most switch stuff, however basically comes down to needing more hardware. Cam costs a certain amount, packet buffers cost a certain amount (Or wormhole switching silicon costs a certain amount), etc. None of that you can ever really move into software. At least not decently.
  - nl 15y ago
    None of that you can ever really move into software. At least not decently. For pure switches, you might be right (for a while at least). But there is plenty of higher level stuff that is at least partially implemented in silicon (and/or inaccessible software) that is about to be eaten by software. Things like load-balancing, for example: http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2011/05/20/SoftwareLoadBalancingUsingSoftwareDefinedNetworking.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2011/05/20/SoftwareLoadBala...
    - asharp 15y ago
      Good point. I'm not sure what most of that stuff was doing in hardware in the first place, tbh. Haproxy has been better then hardware load balancing for a long time. What is interesting is the move off cisco's proprietary routing algorithms and into more standard quogga/etc.
serverascode 15y ago
I actually don't think it's that expensive per port, I'm not a networking expert, but I've done a cursory look at a few numbers and Arista is relatively inexpensive...maybe even very inexpensive comparatively. :)

by asharp 15y ago

nl 15y ago

I think that's pretty much what would be expected at this stage. High-performance devices will probably require custom silicon for a while yet, but they can charge a premium. Lower end devices will probably have less custom silicon, more software and be cheaper.

asharp 15y ago
Basically, yeah. All lower end devices end up with basically same batch of ASIC, anyway just due to cost. Most switch stuff, however basically comes down to needing more hardware. Cam costs a certain amount, packet buffers cost a certain amount (Or wormhole switching silicon costs a certain amount), etc. None of that you can ever really move into software. At least not decently.
- nl 15y ago
  None of that you can ever really move into software. At least not decently. For pure switches, you might be right (for a while at least). But there is plenty of higher level stuff that is at least partially implemented in silicon (and/or inaccessible software) that is about to be eaten by software. Things like load-balancing, for example: http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2011/05/20/SoftwareLoadBalancingUsingSoftwareDefinedNetworking.aspx http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2011/05/20/SoftwareLoadBala...
  - asharp 15y ago
    Good point. I'm not sure what most of that stuff was doing in hardware in the first place, tbh. Haproxy has been better then hardware load balancing for a long time. What is interesting is the move off cisco's proprietary routing algorithms and into more standard quogga/etc.

serverascode 15y ago

I actually don't think it's that expensive per port, I'm not a networking expert, but I've done a cursory look at a few numbers and Arista is relatively inexpensive...maybe even very inexpensive comparatively. :)