From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Nov 18 18:53:38 1996 Return-Path: owner-isp Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA08785 for isp-outgoing; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:53:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA08780 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id SAA28837; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA14559; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:52:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:52:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611190252.SAA14559@chimp.jnx.com> From: Tony Li To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: isp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changed to: Frac T3? References: <199611182252.RAA01561@etinc.com> Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Here is a point though where Dennis will philosophically disagree with me, >and that is all right. Dennis makes a big point out of the fact that a >UNIX router can perform other services too... I do NOT believe in that >paradigm. So for me, specializing a UNIX kernel for a router would not >be a bad concept, but Dennis probably would not agree. I dont disagree (in fact we may have to do it to route T3), but it will be a specialized functions, not for everyone. In fact, there is a _great_ deal of painful experience in dealing with routers where there isn't quite enough CPU time to get everything done. Routing protocols are basically soft real-time distributed systems. When they get delayed, they tend to collapse in spectacular ways. As a result, putting any significant non-routing load on a router is a _really_ bad idea. You MIGHT be able to get away with it by suitable modifications to the Unix scheduler, but then it wouldn't be Unix, would it? ;-) And the cost of another box to support a server is sufficiently low that it would seem to make sense not to risk the routing... Tony