Re: host or border router

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Wednesday, Dec 11, 2002, at 12:58 America/Montreal, Tony Li wrote:
> |   I believe doing it in the actual SBR is a non-starter. Sure, you 
> can
> |   build a box that can replace addresses and maintain the
> |   state that goes
> |   with this. And sure, you can build a box that can forward
> |   IP real fast.
> |   I'm just not sure you can do both at the same time, and even if 
> it's
> |   possible, it won't be cost effective.
>
>
> Sorry, nope.  First, there are multiple systems out there today
> that could do this or are close to it.  Folks are pretty much there
> today with OC-48 interfaces and silicon forwarding, so there is
> enough thrust to support a wire speed GigE.
There are multiple equipment vendors out there today who can do roughly
this on multiple interfaces at more than 1 Gbps line rate per interface.
I'm not sure about 10 Gbps line rate today, but in a year or two even on
a 10 GigE interface this should be feasible for multiple equipment 
vendors.
Consider high-speed NAT products as a starting point, because they have
to keep roughly the same state and perform roughly the same functions.

Technology is just not a problem here.

> Yes, this is a step up from today's SBR, but the major step up here
> is because of the bandwidth, not the added complexity.  For folks
> with a T1, the cannonical 2600 class machine will still run just
> fine.  We have an existance proof thanks to NAT.
Yep.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com