Open Source Router on Par With Cisco, Users Say

Jane Walker writes "On a mission to avoid paying top dollar for Cisco routers, two users say Vyatta's Open Flexible Router is a viable alternative to the proprietary norm. Find out about the pluses and minor hassles involved in deploying this alternative." This probably won't surprise the users of (much lower end) networking gear like the famously hackable Linksys WRT54G, which — like a number of internally similar routers — can be reconfigured with one of several open-source firmwares to do things impossible with the hardware as delivered.

Difference between hardware and software....

[gweihir]

It is not surprising that low-end software routers can offer most things a proper Cisco router can. However when you need hgher speeds, a software router can not cut it. It is then when hardware routers show their strenght. A 100Mbps line usually does not require a hardware router. A 10Gbps line does.

Avoiding "License Transfer" Fees

[evansvillelinux]

Isn't this a way to avoid paying for the licensed software on Cisco equipment when it's sold second hand? (Not trolling or anything, I think it's ridiculous for Cisco to demand payment for software that's already been paid for once.)

if it is only "Standard PC Hardware"

[MerlynEmrys67]

It isn't comparable with Cisco.

But then again for SMB - you don't need 100 MBit routing - many of your internal clients are slamming into your sub 10 Mbit internet connection anyway (that is probably further BW limited by the cable/phone company). Now for true enterprise - you really do need switching/routing at the ASIC level - real switching fabrics (not a glorified PCI bus) in the hardware etc. to handle the multiple GBit links, multiple OC12/OC48 connections to the world, etc.

This is where Cisco shines and I don't see "software only solutions" coming anywhere close

ASICs

[Rekolitus]

This seems to be an entirely software router that just runs on a standard x86 machine.

Isn't half the point of buying a dedicated-hardware router that you get ASICs and whatnot that do the job faster than software?

* As long as we're not switching half the U.S.

[mpapet]

Summary: Works great, supposed problem sounds like it was a driver issue more than an application issue.

Reads like a well-placed article-vertisement.

The "as long as we're not switching half the US" comment are the one's I grow tired of. It's a well-wrapped insult.

I'm not saying Linux is the best tool for routing half the nation, but the comment points out some things that do prevent more linux adoption.

1. "free" is not as good as something I paid for
2. Don't fsck with the status quo.

I admin a company 100% cisco routers/firewalls and I know for a fact Linux can do what gets done.

I'm not going to tell the boss to "just" switch or evangelize too much because of the social/economic implications of doing so may impact my future. I like my employer, they like me, so when we need another router, it's a cisco. I am personally disappointed by this, but I think it explains why innovation takes -so- long to come to the data center. (at least in the U.S.)

Let's not forget that cisco can fire most of their software devs and use a linux-based router project if it ever got close to competing with some Cisco products. Does that qualify as innovation? I'd say no. It's not cheaper or better.

Advertorial

[HKcastaway]

It is great that someone is out there tyring to put some preassure on Cisco however this company is not it. I think the average Linux installation with NAT is a bigger threat that this project.

PC hardware is a joke, slow backplanes, limitation on how many interfaces you can plug in. On the techspecs the number of interfaces types they use is well very very limited. Then reliability of PCs a joke compared to a Cisco box.

Where is this product used?
- Is this a bloated replacement for the US$20 taiwan PPPoE router you can buy? The taiwanese will beat it on TCO hands down on power consumption.
- Is this for the edge of the network to service downstream customers? Why part away from the thousands of installations which live, have predictable and very proven track record of something like a Cisco 7200VXR..

The article (Advertorial) is nicely skewed as making Cisco seem expensive. Go on ebay and look for Cisco routers with FE ports, you can find them for a few hundred dollars. Or try to compare this with 3550 which will provide 24 ports with Layer 3 functionality for way below the US$2000.

I am tired of Cisco killing products off when they feel like it.
They could go into the market of breathing new life into a product that is being cancelled by other vendors. Firebox II anyone?

Vyatta still need a strategy. period.

No huge suprise

[peterdaly]

In or around 1999 I had a 1000 device network routing through a 133Mhz PC running Linux. The 133Mhz system practically thought is was sittle idle as it shuffled packets between three 100 megabit networks.

I'm not suprised at all that these Open Source solutions are on par with Cisco for many users. My only real concern would be support. At least back then (I have not dealt with them recently), Cisco had great support and would "own" network problem resolution in a way that made it worth paying their price.

in other news

[atarione]

a small truck can replace a semi truck.... if you are moving small amounts of items.

Huh, Samba file sharing?

[IpSo_]

"The feature set was comparable to your standard Cisco router," Knox said. "They were offering translating, gateway capability, Samba file sharing, VLAN trunking to 11q ... it really looked like a corporate-level router," he said.

Since when do "corporate-level routers" offer samba file sharing? This seems like the LAST thing I would ever want to put on a router. The only thing I could possibly see Samba being useful for is downloading log/config files. But on a router that is kinda scary, SCP seems much more secure and just as useful.

Open source routing is definitely an option now though. Over 3 years ago the web hosting company I worked for swithced out their Cisco routers that couldn't handle the slighest DDoS attack for a couple AMD based Linux boxes that could easily handle wirespeed DDoS attacks with ease. Not to mention they were a fraction of the cost.

Re:Support, Support, Support

[LWATCDR]

I tend to agree with you but...
With the cost of commodity PCs these days you could probably have an entire second router on hot standby for the cost of a single year's support contract.
If it is a T-1 then just move the cable over. If it is an Ethernet connection the fall over could be entirely automatic http://linux-ha.org/ [linux-ha.org]
You will also have a trade off of in house time to test and configure vs just buying Cisco.
Of course their are times where generic hardware will not cut it. However this does offer some interesting options to a off the self router.
Dedicated hardware will always be faster but software offers a great deal of flexibility.
With cheap duel core 64 bit hardware just how fast can a software router be today?

Re:No huge suprise

[macdaddy]

There is nothing like calling Cisco TAC at 04:00. You get an Aussie TAC engineer that knows 1) you're network is seriously fscked up or you wouldn't be calling him at 04:00, 2) you've already removed what little hair you have from your head and your scalp is bleeding. The nightshift engineer is highly experienced in working under said conditions and is more than capable or resolving the problem. I've been in that position twice in the last month. All I can say is I want to move to Austrailia, mate.

I wish the SmartNet prices were a little more reasonable. They should cut the prices dramatically for the lower-end 8x5x4-day replacement support so that more people can afford it. This would be a solid recurring business for Cisco whereas only a small percentage of Cisco customers bother buying support nowadays.

Re:Support, Support, Support

[macdaddy]

Well said. This easily says 80% of what needs to be said. Without support you have an OSS space heater at 02:00, assuming it will power up at all.

You're buying the hardware

[thesandbender]

I use Debian at home for a general purpose router and firewall and it is very flexible. There have been times when I've been tempted to deploy it as a small/medium business router in lieu of cisco but it's not just about the software, it's about the hardware as well. For a reliable system you need reliable parts... which are more expensive... preferable a cpu with a low thermal dissipation but still fast enough to handle the load, which is going to cost you money and either a RAID system or (ideally) a flash based storage system, which is going to cost money. You can build a system that will beat Cisco's cost/feature set easily. Building a system that can compete on cost/mtbf ... not so easy... and generally just not worth the effort. The article referenced a "still servicable pc" ... which roughly translate into "a machine that we picked up from behind the receptionists desk and cleaned all the dust bunnies out of.... *shudders*

Re:if it is only "Standard PC Hardware"

[aesiamun]

Because even commercial Cable and DSL sales have very little to no QOS. Read your agreement with your local cable co at some point...

You aren't guaranteed uptime as a business cable company anymore than you are guaranteed uptime as a residential customer.

Absolutely true.

[Shaman]

If you're not paying at least $100s of dollars a month, you aren't getting any sort of guarantees.

Re:Speaking as a fulltime Free Software zealot

[sirket]

Let me be clear- Linux _can_ offer almost all of the same services as Cisco- but not in a single unified way. You need to use Zebra for BGP and add in other software for the other protocols. And what happens if you disappear tomorrow. If your environment is Cisco then you can call any other Cisco admin and they can admin it immediately. Try that with a cobbled together Linux solution.

-sirket