Re: host or border router

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

We shouldn't even debate whether the intermediary is physically
in the same box as the SBR or is separate. What we should debate
is whether an intermediary or the host is the best place, or even
whether the functionality can be defined in such a way that even
this doesn't matter. In other words, derive the functionality from
the requirements, and leave the decision about placement open as
long as possible.

   Brian

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, Dec 11, 2002, at 13:29 America/Montreal, Iljitsch van
> Beijnum wrote:
> > I'm not saying it can't be done, just that only a small number of the
> > people buying very fast routers need this, so building this
> > functionality inside generic routers probably isn't the best way to go.
> 
> I believe it can be done in lower cost generic routers using existing
> commodity silicon.  For sure it is available today from multiple vendors
> in products costing less than US$ 5000 (street price).  At 100 Mbps
> performance, it is available in shipping products for less than US$ 1000
> (street price) today.
> 
> It is available at 10 Mbps performance in really really cheap equipment
> for home use today for ~US$ 100.
> 
> Putting it in the router is unlikely to increase the router cost and
> many routers will be able to do it today (e.g. tli's comment about
> the 2600).
> 
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
b