[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: A Humble Suggestion for 2.0/2.1
Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.UKuu.ORG.UK) wrote:

: 1. Dennis is not a BSD bigot, he's someone giving advice he thinks is right
: I also when asked by people "Can I run BGP4 routing on Linux" answer
: "No get an XXX" - I tend to suggest a dedicated router however 8)

Agree. If you want to run BGP4 use Cisco.
There are no reasons to use Free(Net)BSD, if you prefer to use x86
as dedicated router or you want to have source code to get unusual
characteristics (source routing etc.): Linux is your choice.

: 2. Except with very large routing tables (2,000+ routes) Linux 2.0 CREAMS
: the BSD stack. We are getting TCP latencies on 100baseT surpassing
: ultrasparc machines with just a Pentium 133. (*)

Well, I run Linux with ~36000 routes. i486-66MHz gives throughput and delay
better than Cisco-2514 (10Mb, I have no 100baseT).
The weakest point is gated: unreliable, slow, memory hog etc.etc.etc.,
and FreeBSD has the same problem. That's why I recommend Cisco,
kernel part of BGP4 updates are still faster by order(!) on Linux
than on FreeBSD-2.1 and eats much less unswappable memory.

The only situation, when BSD approach could win, is huge backbone router
with randomly distributed simultaneous >4000 peers, when routed packets
do not form a stream-like structure.
(though you still could tune it by increasing size of route cache)

Alexey Kuznetsov.

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.049 / U:20.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site