3 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoNone 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 agoGood 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.