Re: Whitebox Routers Beyond the Datasheet

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> Also, BGP convergence isn't listed (nor do I rarely ever see it talked
> about in such sheets).


I feel like this shouldn't be listed on a data sheet for just the whitebox
hardware. The software running on it would be the gating factor.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 9:05 AM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

> I'm looking at the suitability of whitebox routers for high through, low
> port count, fast BGP performance applications. Power efficiency is
> important as well.
>
> What I've kind of come down to (based on little more than spec sheets) are
> the EdgeCore AGR400 and the UfiSpace S9600-30DX. They can both accommodate
> at least three directions of 400G for linking to other parts of my network
> and then have enough 100G or slower ports to connect to transit, peers, and
> customers as appropriate. Any other suggestions for platforms similar to
> those would be appreciated.
>
> They both appear to carry buffers large enough to accommodate buffering
> differences in port capacities, which is an issue I've seen with boxes more
> targeted to cloud\datacenter switching.
>
> What isn't in the spec sheets is BGP-related information. They don't
> mention how many routes they can hold, just that they have additional TCAM
> to handle more routes and features. That's wonderful and all, but does it
> take it from 64k routes to 512k routes, or does it take it from 256k routes
> up to the millions of routes? Also, BGP convergence isn't listed (nor do I
> rarely ever see it talked about in such sheets). I know that software-based
> routers can now load a full table in 30 seconds or less. I know that
> getting the FIB  updated takes a little bit longer. I know that withdrawing
> a route takes a little bit longer. However, often, that performance is
> CPU-based. An underpowered CPU may take a minute or more to load that table
> and may take minutes to handle route churn. Can anyone speak to these
> routers (or routers like these) ability to handle modern route table
> activity?
>
> My deployment locations and philosophies simply won't have me in an
> environment where I need the density of dozens of 400G\100G ports. That the
> routers that seem to be more marketed to the use case are designed for.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com