Subject: RE: host or border router

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:58:47 -0800

|   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.  

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.

Tony

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:29:27 +0100 (CET)

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> |   I believe doing it in the actual SBR is a non-starter.

> enough thrust to support a wire speed GigE.

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.

Not _requiring_ it to be done in the SBR leaves the option to do it in
the SBR anyway wide open for those who think that's a good idea. The
other way around is more problematic.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:41:07 -0500

> 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.

> fine.  We have an existance proof thanks to NAT.

Yep.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:00:49 -0500

On Wednesday, Dec 11, 2002, at 13:29 America/Montreal, Iljitsch van 
> 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
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:46:58 +0100

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

> many routers will be able to do it today (e.g. tli's comment about
b