x
Optical/IP Networks

Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales

Networking equipment giant Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) is building a router of colossal proportions, according to one source familiar with the product. The behemoth core routing platform supposedly links to up to 18 different chassis, weighs more than 1,300 pounds per chassis, and has a total system capacity of 11.5 Tbit/s.

Sound farfetched? It may well be. Light Reading couldn't independently verify our source's data, but those familiar with Cisco's plans -- analysts and other sources -- say the findings sound authentic based on their past meetings with carriers reviewing the product.

If true, these few details that have leaked out are significant, given that Cisco won't even publicly acknowledge that the product exists. Folks have speculated about Cisco's Huge Fast Router (HFR) for years. Most recently, some were expecting its debut at Supercomm 2003, then again at the International Telecommunication Union's ITU Telecom tradeshow in Geneva.

"We know it’s out there," says Stephen Kamman, an analyst with CIBC World Markets. "Everyone’s just waiting for Cisco to tell us what we already know."

Several analysts say the product is in trials with at least six carriers, two of which are believed to be AT&T Corp. (NYSE: T) and Sprint Corp. (NYSE: FON), and at least one major regional Bell operator.

The long-awaited router is interesting, in part, because Cisco has spent an exorbitant amount of time and money developing the beast, sources say. For example, the company has built an entirely new operating system to run the thing.

Kevin Mitchell, an analyst with Infonetics Research Inc., says that most carriers are still only testing the software. Consequently, he doesn’t expect the product to be commercially deployed for at least another 12 months.

Here are some other details one Light Reading source was able to uncover after reviewing documents that Cisco itself circulated about its product:
  • Architecture
    The HFR router can be configured in one of three architectures: single core; dual core, interconnected with 1.2 Tbit/s parallel-optical-link (Paroli cables); or multicore, with two core chassis that interconnect up to 18 chassis.
  • Software
    As mentioned, Cisco has developed an entirely new operating system for the HFR. The command line interface looks a lot like Cisco's Internetwork Operating System (IOS), the software that runs most routers today. The IOS and the new operating system likely share a lot of the same code, but they are very different architecturally. Unlike IOS, the new OS is modular and runs different software packages that enable various large feature sets, such as management, MPLS, routing protocols, multicast, and security.
  • Capacity
    In aggregate, the backplane of the system scales up to 11.5 Tbit/s. There has also been mention of supporting OC768 (40-Gbit/s) connections as part of a planning consideration for the product.
  • Processors
    Routing protocols are still handled by one or two dedicated route processors in each chassis. For scaleability, an additional distributed route processor can be installed in any line-card slot. This processor is similar to Cisco's Distributed Cisco Express Forwarding (dCEF), deployed on its lower-end routing platforms. The Express Forwarding processor provides each interface with an identical on-card copy of the FIB (forward information base) database, enabling them to autonomously perform express forwarding. The only difference with the distributed route processors on the HFR is that there is not a fixed 1:1 relationship between the line card and the forwarding table.
  • Virtual Routing
    Each slot in an HFR chassis can be assigned different virtual routers or logical routers. These logical routers can be separately rebooted, and each has its own configuration. But because each chassis is only given two route processors, virtualized scaleability is fairly limited.
  • Line-Card Flexibility
    In the line cards, the physical connection and optics have been separated from the routing functionality. As a result, the routing functionality can be mated with more than one type of physical optical connection -- so you could swap an OC12 for a Gigabit Ethernet card simply by changing the physical layer interface module.
  • Weight
    If you thought the TSR from Avici Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: AVCI; Frankfurt: BVC7) had a weight problem, get a load of the HFR (see Avici Battles Weight Problem ). One chassis is 1,350 lbs. -- about as much as a very large moose -- and gobbles 12 kilowatts of power.
Specifics about line-card densities on individual HFR chassis aren't known yet, but its scaleability recalls the Juniper Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: JNPR) T640 core chassis, which was introduced in 2002 (see Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640). At the time, Juniper outlined details of a new optical core it called the TX, which could be used to link together up to eight T640's. Cisco's scaleable router, deployed in a dual-core configuration, can supposedly link together up to 18 different chassis. Even though Juniper has introduced the concept of the TX, it hasn't formally launched the product, nor has it announced any customers that are using it.

"Considering that Juniper hasn’t released the TX core connection for the T640, it's really a matter of just comparing PowerPoint [presentations]," says Infonetics' Mitchell.

Avici is the only vendor that has a working multichassis implementation. The company announced in the second quarter of this year that AT&T had hooked two of its TSR routers together.

Cisco did not respond to requests for comment on this article. — Marguerite Reardon, Senior Editor, Light Reading

cyber_techy 12/4/2012 | 11:10:46 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Here's the translation of the article (courtesy of babelfish)

The leaders of this great hope of the sector of information technologies in Quebec do not see more than one also evil eye their purchase, possibly by a large player of telecommunications.

"This reversal is due to one year of economic realism, affirms Richard Norman, president d' Hyperchip. Moreover, examples in industry show us that it is possible to be bought and nevertheless to continue the work which one carried out front."
Pierre 12/4/2012 | 11:10:47 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales The word on the street is that, while they have put out the lure, no one has bitten. They have nearly exhausted their cash reserves, and most employees expect another "Mystery Letter" to be mailed to their homes. Any hard information on whether they will get past Christmas? Q1 2004? Is the PBR-1280 in anyone's hands yet??
TheVoice 12/4/2012 | 11:15:12 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales From LesAffaires.com article

Who could be interested?

(translated from French)
-Alcatel gave up its Next-Gen router development.
-Lucent, Ericsson and Siemens are quite happy with their Juniper Networks sales partnerships.
-Nortel is not interested into that market. Maybe
-Juniper who remains alone with its own router ( T-640), and
-Cisco Systems who’s working on its own Next-Gen router (rumor)
cowboy_carl 12/4/2012 | 11:15:14 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales A local business newspaper reported today "Hyperchip ready to consider acquisition offers" (translated from French).

See http://www.lesaffaires.com/fr/...
dwdm2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:16 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "Obviously you have not worked in optical networking for a long time..."

Thats right, and I don't know anyone been in this area long. Heys things started in the late 80s and commercial systems became available in the mid 90s. In fact "optical networking" is yet to come to fruition...

This is another aspect of anonymity, you can claim anything and more often than not people will buy them too.

Cheers
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:16:18 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Mark,

Thanks for the reference to Meyer's site. Very interesting stuff. I'll be reading it for some time. Thanks again.

-Victor Blake
itisi 12/4/2012 | 11:16:20 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales I'm actually Brittany Spears. I didn't think my fans would understand. But my love for Boxes with Big BW leads me to out myself....

BS
mdwdm 12/4/2012 | 11:16:20 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "I thought you are for gigabit ethernet alliance..."

Obviously you have not worked in optical networking for a long time...
dwdm2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:20 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales I thought you are for gigabit ethernet alliance...
gea 12/4/2012 | 11:16:21 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Well, I haven't seen some of the obvious statements here.

Let's say I piss off someone so much they decide to hunt me down. I don't like the assymetry that would be involved if they knew who I was (if I was fully non-anonymous) and they were completely anonymous.

As it stands I use my initials, so people who've been in the optical networking industry a long time know exactly who I am and will call me up after some of my posts. So call it quasi-anonymous.
Mark Seery 12/4/2012 | 11:16:21 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Vick,

>> ...but I'm glad not to be the only one with such thoughts. <<

David Meyer has many papers on the subject at his website, and raised the issue at the Oregon Nanog about a year ago (which probably planted the seed in my mind). Not everyone looks at complexity the same way, but it is getting more attention, including the GROW WG at IETF.

http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/comp...
ghostinthecore 12/4/2012 | 11:16:22 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >Few people have the freedom to use their real >names when posting. A variety of reasons exist:

You missed several:

- Many people are not allowed to have public
opinions because of their positions in companies.
And if they were to post under their own names,
they would have to engage in self-censorship to
keep their messages consistant with that of the
company. Plus they would have to avoid any
controversy for fear of creating negative PR
for their company.

- Some people actually have contracts that
(if enforced) legally forbid them to even exchange
pure technical information or ideas on forums
like this. Many people don't even know the
details of their contracts or how they are
restricted.

- Many forums have double-standards for what
is and is not allowed. For example, its
perfectly acceptable to be rude/arrogant or
even to publically insult people involved at
IETF as long as they are less famous and don't
have any powerful friends. But if you give
back in public what you get, you
will find yourself shunned and ignored.

- There are consequences to speaking freely in
public. Many people don't run into a problem
because they self-censor themselves & avoid
really having any views of substance. They
generate lots of hot air and flowerly academic
language, but any conversation with them is
mostly unproductive. They can't question
any sort of authority, can't share details about
real experiences with real products and never
have an opinion of their own. Its like hanging
out discussing music with the groopies of a band.

- There is tons of industry gossip that the
press is too isolated to even know. Everyone
always assumes that leaks of "confidential
information" come from within their own company.
But the truth is, there is alot less true
confidential information than people realize.
I've seen companies disclose information at
trade shows in public forums and then go crazy
when their "secret" shows up in a message
group. Very little shows up on light reading
that has not already been talked about all
over the industry in private.

- If you say things about companies that people
don't like, there are people who will try to
take revenge. Some examples:

- emails to your superiors threatening
libel action.
- emails to your superiors about how
you are wasting company time complete
with message logs.
- crank calls
- emails to your superiors threatening
legal action because of "stolen secrets".

The threat of legal action never goes
anywhere because the threat is usually
sufficient.

I find most of the anonymous messages having more
useful content than those published under real
names.

I find it equally amazing how poorly many people
react to criticism and the rush to personalize
critiques of companies/projects/works.

All criticism is taken as a personal attack.
The (old) idea of different opinions co-existing
is not allowed. And that leads to the
intellectual dead-end of ceasing to have any
real discussion of issues or ideas.
echo2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:22 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales ghostinthecore wrote:

"I find most of the anonymous messages having more
useful content than those published under real
names."

Notice the amount of useful content in ghostinthecore's anonymous post. Furthermore, notice that this is a new anonymous author, from someone who clearly didn't discover lightreading yesterday. Obviously someone who has multiple personalities, or someone who spoke too honestly about light reading. I guess the latter, so welcome back ghost.
echo2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:22 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Victor wrote:

"I'm intrigued by your "blue collar" engineer comment."
"that while I can see the benefits of anonymity, it would also be helpful to know where people work and what they do to put comments into perspective."

Blue collar engineer is just an opinion I have formed about my profession out of observation of the industry, and not anything that has happened to me personally. I planed on moving out of engineering in a few years due to other issues such as age ceiling, and the fact that many companies have eliminated most technical ladder paths. I probably should have left it out of my comment since the subject has been tirelessly beat to death from all possible angles on these boards.

I have to remain anonymous because I have mostly used the board for entertainment, and to poke a little fun at the competition. Also, I do not want anyone to assume that I am representing my company, for many of the reasons that ghostinthecore mentioned. If you look at my past posts you will see that I rarely engage in serious discussion. I have virtually no respect for the intellectual or factual content of this forum, although admittedly there are a few diamonds in the ruff. Take the Procket thread for example. I started it to poke fun at them, and because I am curious about them. It just turned into a Tony bashing/worship thread which was not my intention, and nothing interesting about Procket came up. Oh wait, I forgot about the stickers, that was interesting in addition to being very entertaining.
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:16:22 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Mark,

I haven't read that particular one, but I will certainly do so. Thanks for the recommendation.

I did think I was veering towards academic on that one, but I'm glad not to be the only one with such thoughts.

My apologies on citing rjmcmahon instead of you with that quote.

-Victor Blake
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:16:23 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Yes, anononymity is so "objective" that The Economist has come to live by it. Its actually, I think, the great flaw of The Economist. I had thought we (let's say here that "we" means post- post-modern people) were past the point of thinking that anyone's opinions were really objective.

In the end I think it (anonymity) is fine for those who choose it. I respect the opinions of others based on what they have said, how they say it, and what contribution they make -- not on "right" or "wrong" since these concepts don't often apply. I do think though -- and I was trying to say this before, that some postings could be more valueable if we knew the authors.

-Victor Blake
dwdm2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:23 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Mark,

Admittedly, it takes some courage to use real name, and has its advantage. Anonymity, however, can be used for more than one reasons. One can use anonymity for the purposes you have mentioned. BM uses anonymity mostly to vent his frustration. But thats not all.

Used properly, anonymity can highlight ones ideas on a topic and points the reader to discuss the topic. Although, for most part, it may be just a matter of choice.

Regards
Mark Seery 12/4/2012 | 11:16:24 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales doesn't seemd to have deterred BM ;-)

I assume you mean if there is no chance of becoming famous you are less likely to betray your true feelings / get on a ego-path that detracts from the message?

So is the longevity as a result of being more true to yourself or as a result of people not flicking the bozo switch on you in other contexts because they know who you are?

thanks...
dwdm2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:24 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Another reason for anonymity is that it saves from the lure of becoming famous on the message board. Anonymous posting also gives a poster longevity compared to real name poster.

Just my observation.
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:16:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Echo2, et. al.

I think that "sectionable" gear is part of the design maturing emerging in new routers. The GSR for example, had clock/schedule card redundancy separate for RP's. And it was nice to be able to add capacity (vertical scaling) without touching IP routing, for example. I think we all hope to see more improvements along those lines from future routers.

On the other hand, there is always an argument to make that many "little" intelligent boxes can equal the value of larger more complex ones. I've been intrigued by recent reading I have done about "emergent" systems, and particularly the relevant impact on software development. But this is quite a tangent ...

I'm intrigued by your "blue collar" engineer comment. I once interviewed for an architecture position (which I didn't take) in which the hiring manager thought I wasn't a qualified network architect because I had actually configured and installed routers. I'm not sure where those distinctions came from, but I am quite sure they didn't apply to my experiences as a network architect.

This forum appears to be the appropriate place to blur those lines and make comments based on experience or out of interest -- without regard to collar color. I will add though -- now tying into the thread about use of names and about Tony's participation -- that while I can see the benefits of anonymity, it would also be helpful to know where people work and what they do to put comments into perspective.

For the record, I work at Foundry Networks. No one would have known that because my role here isn't to represent my employer. In fact I do not comment at all on press/rumors/ or matters directly related to my employer.

I was nonetheless a Cisco customer for years with significant experience using the GSR and worked closely with many of the then and still now great teams out building routers at Cisco, Foundry, Procket (they were just getting started at the time), et. al. It is fair to say that every router vendors has considered all of these issues of scaling, physical size, power, port density, operability, software, cost, maintainance, etc. Some better than others. To a great degree the differences in products and architecture reflect the different customers they are talking to and their beliefs. As well there are the guesses and intuitions of product managers...

-Victor Blake
Mark Seery 12/4/2012 | 11:16:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Victor,

>> I will add though -- now tying into the thread about use of names and about Tony's participation -- that while I can see the benefits of anonymity, it would also be helpful to know where people work and what they do to put comments into perspective. <<

Few people have the freedom to use their real names when posting. A variety of reasons exist:

-it is seen as a sign of idleness (lack of attention to one's real job)
-indulging in the pit of the devil (rather than the constructive exchange of ideas)
-having the potential to great information leaks

The third issue is ultimately the most intellectually interesting in that an economy is said to be most efficient when the most amount of information is revealed, yet actors within economies mostly work against this.

I think anonymity works best for people that:
-want to make personal attacks
-want to express a view they are unsure of
-want to express a view for which they perceive they will receive social scorn or offend the "gods".

Non-anonymity works best for people:
-that stick to expressing views about a tight range of subjects, for example sticking to simply technical issues.

It a debate about the merit of an idea, it would seem that in theory someones occupation should be irrelevent, but as you say, we seem to place a lot of emphasis on the messenger, when receiving messages.
Mark Seery 12/4/2012 | 11:16:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Hi Victor,

>> I agree with rjmcmahon

"IMHO, the battle for the core should be viewed as a strategic battle, at least as much, if not more so, than a financial/opportunity battle." <<

fyi, that was actually my quote, though understand the mix up given the way things are reposted sometimes.

On the topic of emergent systems, have you read the box called "Complexity" by M. Mitchell Waldrop. Quite an eye opener on the subject of emergent behavior.

I don't believe the subject is such a tangent. It would appear there are multiple dimensions to complexity, some bad and some good. It would also appear that very complex value added emergent systems can emerge from the simplest of building blocks - also quite relevent.

In this light, it is clear we have to balance the complexity of individual components against the complexity of the overall system. Something to keep in mind by those that think complicating the building blocks is the only way to prevent commoditization (IMO).
echo2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:29 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Victor route:

"I agree and you make a good point here. But how far would you suggest one go ? There is always the danger of going too far in one direction. So the balance to strike is between too large a number of routers, making it cumbersome to interconnect, manage, etc. and too few, thereby increasing the impact of failures, maintenance, and likely increasing capital costs (by always doing forklift upgrades to fit everything into one box -- as opposed to the kind of growth I describe below). This is a classic distributed system design challenge."

How far to go is a multimillion dollar question...literally. Not having to answer questions like that is one of the advantages to being a blue collar engineer. One thing is obvious, they have not gone far enough. And the carriers have said so loud and clear. Fork lift upgrades do not work on national and international backbone networks that take multiple years to build. You are also right about the problems that you run into as you scale routers vertically. To do so requires true multi-chassis, reliable, sectionable gear. Telecom gear was more like that, but enterprise gear never was. It has got a lot better, and next gen gear is better still, but IP places a glass ceiling on how reliable and available it can go. IP over SONET, is still IP.

During the next two years, carriers are going to take their best guess at the answer to this question. It will be interesting to watch since they will be throwing millions of dollars and thousands of man hours at it, while hundreds of millions of customers hang in the balance.
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:16:31 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Echo2 wrote:

"Perhaps if core routers weren't so small, you would not need so many access and feeder routers, and you could have less layers, easier management, less jitter, and less latency, and therefore a bigger market."

I agree and you make a good point here. But how far would you suggest one go ? There is always the danger of going too far in one direction. So the balance to strike is between too large a number of routers, making it cumbersome to interconnect, manage, etc. and too few, thereby increasing the impact of failures, maintainance, and likely increasing capital costs (by always doing forklift upgrades to fit everyting into one box -- as opposed to the kind of growth I describe below). This is a classic distributed system design challenge.

I have referred to the growth of networks in "two dimensions." HORIZONTAL growth is the additional of more routers in "parallel" to add bandwidth, ports, etc. VERTICAL growth is a growth in the bandwidth per port, or # ports per router. The typical pattern is to use some state of the art router in a deployment, and grow horizontal for a while. So with the GSR 12012, for example, that was OC-48 (per LC) based. Interconnects were then 48 or 12, then the same routers were used for feeders with 48 feeds and 12/3 access ports.

One could of course replace a "complex" of multiple GSR's with a bigger router and just put all the ports in one router. But that introduces problems. If one did that, how would one do maintainance ? What about software tests of new code ? This is easer done with a larger number of routers than a smaller number -- because the impact to the system is lower. The ultimate in consolidated architecture is reflected in traditional telecommunciaitons systems design with a large DACS perhaps, or in CO with class-n switches. But, from the beginning IP wasn't designed to be operated with "one" switch doing the whole job. On the other hand I think we can all agree, for example, that we wouldn't want to build a Tier 1 POP from 7500's either! Look at what happened with MAE East and the Gigaswitches. It became an awful mess because the growth was horizontal FOREVER -- there was never any vertical because FDDI was dead-end after the GigaSwitch. The only vertical was to POS (at that time) and now of course to GigE and ... of late -- 10GigE.

-Victor Blake
echo2 12/4/2012 | 11:16:31 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales vrparente wrote:

"For every core router there are, quite by definition, all of its access, feeder, etc. routers. So there are always more non-core routers. The "big" market is in mid to smaller sized routers. And that's just in transit and access networks. If one includes host/data centers (in service provider land) and then enterprise (data centers and access networks), core routers are a small fraction of ports sold."

Perhaps if core routers weren't so small, you would not need so many access and feeder routers, and you could have less layers, easier management, less jitter, and less latency, and therefore a bigger market.
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:16:34 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales I agree with rjmcmahon

"IMHO, the battle for the core should be viewed as a strategic battle, at least as much, if not more so, than a financial/opportunity battle."

For every core router there are, quite by definition, all of its access, feeder, etc. routers. So there are always more non-core routers. The "big" market is in mid to smaller sized routers. And that's just in transit and access networks. If one includes host/data centers (in service provider land) and then enterprise (data centers and access networks), core routers are a small fraction of ports sold.

But core routers are "prestigious." It's basically mindshare and the trickle down effects. More so among the media than even the customers. Let's face it. Vendors know how routers work and what they are used for. And so do most customers. The least knowledge crowd of "talking participants" is generally the media and analysts, who at best have a "hearsay

-Victor Blake
IP Observer 12/4/2012 | 11:16:34 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "T640 max power is 6.5kW."
Actually, T640 is 6,500 watts per chassis and 22,178 BTUs/hr. In 7ft rack this equates to 13,000 watts and over 44k BTUs/hr.

You'd be able to heat the rack of equipment next to it which is one problem with the T640.

It will be interesting to see where HFR power requirements end up, but let's hope they are not where T640 is currently at.

gotman 12/4/2012 | 11:16:37 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales rszarecki

Going by the T640 numbers you mentioned HFR will use a few fractions less power per rack.

WRT to capacity/size lets stick to what LR are reporting ;).
rszarecki 12/4/2012 | 11:16:38 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Incomparison to HFR

T640 max power is 6.5kW.
Each of two PEM (Power entry modules) have 2 circuit . Each circuit is 68Amps (normative).

So about half of HFR. But what is capacity/size of HFR?
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:16:38 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales IMHO, the battle for the core should be viewed as a strategic battle, at least as much, if not more so, than a finanical/opportunity battle.

The way I see it, the core "battle" depends upon the access problem being solved and the delivery of valuable freight. That is where control over how the bits get transported occurs.

TANGENT ON

Sometimes our industry sometimes looks like the RRs of the late 1800s. One example, when Jay Gould and Vanderbilt started a market share "battle" for the transport of cattle. A freight car of cattle started at $150. The price war drove the price to $1. Vanderbilt won the market share battle and rejoiced. Then he started moving the cattle. He began to notice the companies that owned all the cattle were Gould's.

Sometimes the games we humans play are misguided. The outcomes can make us angry, sad, or at best laugh at ourselves. It would be nice to see our industry rise above these games and start delivering on the promises made.

TANGENT OFF
null0 12/4/2012 | 11:16:40 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Form factor = h*w*d

Lowest cost per bit = Form Factor*$m2*Tbps/M

apples=apples = 10, 15, 20 with latest product and known numbers. (rounding applied)



optical_man 12/4/2012 | 11:16:41 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "Is there any way to get one of those without buying a router? :)"

I suggest an 'E' round of funding, as in E-Bay.
A buck a pop, several thousand stickers = a nice chunk of Operating Funds.
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 11:16:42 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Yes, the stickers are for real. Someone made them up as a joke. I still have several thousand.


Is there any way to get one of those without buying a router? :)
clockme 12/4/2012 | 11:16:42 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales It is probably no coincidence that much of the core routing market has similar power and size numbers as physics of power and cooling is fair and consistent across the board.

However, there was note regarding the need for manufacturers to create their best product at the core. I can't help but think that Juniper has begun a downward trend since their initial success with the M40. Their time-to-market strategy has cost them many mistakes that customers will not soon forget, combined with and edge focus that clearly comes at the expense of core product resources.

So given all the parameters, it is clear that the core of the network is in play. Those manufacturers that spend fewer resources re-acknowledging their past mistakes in a sliding window of opportunity should be first to the finish line, no?
bien64 12/4/2012 | 11:16:44 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Back to the original topic, from the article it sounds like the power and weight numbers (12kw and 1300 pounds) are about the same as
2 T640s in a rack (13kw and 1100+ pounds) or
2 8812's in a rack (14kw and 1100+ pounds).
Not really that hard to believe.
realdeal 12/4/2012 | 11:16:46 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Several thousand? Tony, I hope you get a chance to use all of them :)
Mark Seery 12/4/2012 | 11:16:46 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales 5514DD,

Problems such as the one you describe can be worked around by, for example, building products that take multiple 50 AMP feeds. That said, if some enterprising engineer invented a way to get power requirements down, it would add considerable value to our industry.

I don't know the specifics of HFR requirements, and imagine that are substantial if rumors of size are true, but will say that historically the GSR has tended to be in a range that was relatively good (relative to top-end Routers not relative to say to some of the industries theoretical CO requirements - which few if any top end routers comply with - though I don't necessarily see that as a huge problem, but none the less an interesting talking point).

Rest of the thread,

IMHO, the battle for the core should be viewed as a strategic battle, at least as much, if not more so, than a finanical/opportunity battle. Core routers should be a technology companies showcase of the best it can do. An example of the inherent capabilities a company posseses. If some companies struggle in the core, it is in some large part, IMHO, because the entire company is not coalesced around the strategic importance of the core. So it is not always simply a problem of execution, sometimes problems of thinking and culture contribute as well.
sgan201 12/4/2012 | 11:16:48 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Hi Tony,
Thanks for your post.. It has been educational.. Eventhough, we disagree.. Let's hope some day I can meet you in person at Supercomm and we can debate the market of multiservice switch versus router..

Thanks again..

Dreamer
5514DD 12/4/2012 | 11:16:48 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales I remember hearing that a lab trial on the Cisco ONS 15600 due to it requiring dual 100-amp feeds and that particular SP not having those breakers in their lab. What type of power feeds will the HFR require?
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 11:16:50 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Author: Tony Li Number: 86
Subject: Re: "Inspected by Tony Li" stickers Date: 11/5/2003 11:44:15 PM
Yes, the stickers are for real. Someone made them up as a joke. I still have several thousand.
Tony

Not THAT'S funny.
Whether they were made as an honor, a tribute, an inside joke, or as a knock, this is truly funny.
Personally, I'd plant them on everything I could find. (slap 'em on the backs of all the LR Editors at the next LR party)

Haven't heard many good Engineer pranks lately. This one is great!!

Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:16:51 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales

Yes, the stickers are for real. Someone made them up as a joke. I still have several thousand.

Tony
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:16:52 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony, agree with some of your comments. I think you know that you speak down to people and think highly of yourself. You stormed out of cisco, stormed out of Juniper, drove some out of procket, and actually allowed products to ship out the door that contain a sticker that claims you inspected them.

As for you posting with your name. I seem to remember as you stated that for quite some time you posted with the name tony1athome or something like that. Nothing that would indicate to the common reader you were "tony li". Now you have changed to "Tony Li" and I simply feel the timing could not be better as Procket prepares to really come to market.

The smarter you appear on the boards the better people "might" think the equipment you helped found might be. Enough said.. these are my opinions and I have awaken and angered your support group enough.

pat
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 11:16:53 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales ... are they for real?
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:16:54 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
I'd like to thank folks for their words of support, both here, via email and in person. I appreciate them greatly.

Pat, none of the posts that I make are (conciously) out of ego. I'm sorry if you took my comment about helping to educate as snotty. It wasn't intended that way. I've been doing routers for years and have a bit of insight that I'm willing to share. There are many others who I learn from. If you want their input and their perspective, then these message boards (and LR in general) needs to be a fair, balanced place to have a discussion. If folks who have insight are not welcomed and are simply persecuted in the name of competition, they will stay away in droves. This will drive the signal to noise ratio to 0 quite quickly. Look what happened to Usenet.

Yours for rational discussion and open agendas,
Tony
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:16:54 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony,

No explanation needed, its time for a group hug!

The simple fact that you actually use your own name instead of hiding behind a userid (like me and 1000 other people, says a lot)!

Onward and upward..let's talk HFR!

This puppy is head to toe Motorola PowerPC (in a land that has been Mips forever). Would be a big kick in the groin for newly spun off SPS if it went nowhere!

EC
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:16:57 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Sisyphus,

Any idea what it was going to be if it has changed into a 1300-lb. 16 chassis system? Is the expansion of chassis more recent maybe due to the marketing buzz?

Thx.
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:16:58 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Signmeup,

I can't remember the last time I have posted a negative comment about a startup. Procket included. Outside of course of just the financial, hard road they all have in front of them. My statements are my opionions. My comments were not directed at procket they were directed at Tony. He is a big boy and can handle it I am sure. Are you his bodyguard?

The reasons for my anger is that in typical fashion he makes people feel inadequate and smaller than him by making statements that he wants to write on these boards to keep people educated of the facts. My opinion is that I feel there are brighter guys out there without the same ego that should also comment and then I feel I honestly may learn something.

As far as Juniper is concerned I will admit it all day long.. they are solid. They competed against an 800-lb. gorilla and won. The word win has a lot of definitions but stole 30+ percent of their core competency.. core IP routing. All the guys or most that post on these boards are super sharp guys/gals who probably at some point were a factor in doing the bakeoffs....me included! The router hands down kills a cisco GSR.

I am not going to go into details about procket vs. juniper. At my old company I logged into one and saw one with the "inspected by tony li" sticker, etc., That was my comment. The market will tell who is better as it hopefully will always do to keep steady competition. I will continue to eval and if procket is better so be it that's what I'll recommend mgmt. to buy.

And by the way.. what statements should I prove? Do you really think that any startup including procket could have a router "day one" as feature rich, proven, and solid/stable as a Juniper or even a Cisco for that matter? I have friends as well who have tested procket and some say it needs a lot of maturing and some say it looks very promising. Last I checked though Juniper and Cisco own the Internet core. Why don't you enlighten us then on why we are the stupid ones buying juniper and cisco and not procket.

Pat
opticalwatcher 12/4/2012 | 11:16:59 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales 40G a killer feature? That is what they thought two years ago. Most of the companies that addressed this market are now out of business.
TriteReading 12/4/2012 | 11:16:59 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Does anyone know if the HFR has a 40G port on it? If so, this would be a killer feature compared to Juniper, Procket, etc.
Sisyphus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:02 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
> .. but when you are in the process of releasing
> the biggest router (currently) on the market,
> to a market that is skeptical about the need
> for such a thing, and you make statements
> like, if the taffic doubles every
> year.......you have moved over from the purely
> adding an opinion column to being on the hairy
> edge of product marketing ...

I think it is natural for anyone in a young company to strongly feel they are solving a legitimate issue in a new and better way, and to be a market evangelist about it to some degree. That considered, TL approaches topics in a very balanced way, in my opinion. I never sense much of a product pitch.

> .. if all the links on core routers are
> curretnly running at 10% utilization, and
> traffic doubles every year, it would be 20,
> 40, 80 ...into the 4th year from now ...

Err, no. Try running a public IP network at an peak period (let alone average) 80% link utilization, and see what happens. Users are not going to be happy. You have to add capacity far earlier than that. At 40%, I'd say. And that's just for tolerable best effort services. Add into the mix the fact that many applications that networks are trying to attracts are latency and loss sensitive, and if you're one of the bandwidth-before-WFQ/RED/etc believers you better add capacity right here, right now.

I for one already notice decreased performance in the SBC network as a DSL user compared to what it used to be, and am pretty convinced it is for lack of investment. There are portions of the DSL network that barely perform better than dial-up lines, and business and home users will take their $30/month to wherever the best performance is in the mid-term.

But none of this guarantees a company's success. A ready market is only the most basic of requirements for a company's success, a lot of stuff has to happen on the way there, especially in our day and time, where almost every advantage is with the incumbent...
routethus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:02 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >> Err, no. Try running a public IP network at an peak period (let alone average) 80% link utilization, and see what happens <<

78% is a well accepted queuing threshold. And in tight economic times...at any rate, the point is, a "balanced" discussion would include comments on what the starting point is in terms of cuirrent utilization - sadly missing from this debate.

>> I think it is natural for anyone in a young company to strongly feel they are solving a legitimate issue in a new and better way <<

I don't have a problem with anyone being an evangelist for their product or technology, I welcome it. What deserves comment is the rose colored glasses some seem to be wearing. The world is a stage...........to be observed, not to be judged.
routethus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:04 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Sisyphus,

>> Perhaps I don't folow the boards closely enough, but I have to yet see TL blatantly drum up the company hype machine <<

Yes Tony stays away from topics that might be sensitive, but when you are in the process of releasing the biggest router (currently) on the market, to a market that is skeptical about the need for such a thing, and you make statements like, if the taffic doubles every year.......you have moved over from the purely adding an opinion column to being on the hairy edge of product marketing (having already admitted to being in product management).

For example, if all the links on core routers are curretnly running at 10% utilization, and traffic doubles every year, it would be 20, 40, 80 ...into the 4th year from now when new routers would actually be required. So by forgetting to add this aspect to the discussion, Tony offered more than just an independent academic viewpoint, he actually offered a spin which supports his company's mission.

I have to say also that while we all appreciate hearing about the wonderful facts about the Procket products, any body else, in any other position, in any other company (and including Procket) would probably be fired for doing so. So by doing so, Tony has in effect made himself the de facto Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) - not surprising given how many marketing teams Procket has gone through.

There are consequences to things that are said in public. Public people have to live by those consequences. I see know reason, and I doubt that Tony would either, why Tony should be exempt.

>> HFR isn't cancelled. It's simply not what it was originally going to be, the project has changed a lot from its early blueprints. <<

Thanks &*% for that!
signmeup 12/4/2012 | 11:17:04 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Pat,

You have consistantly posted negative comments about startups you are obviously threatened by. The only positive things you say are about Juniper so either you work for them or they are paying you in other ways.

I am calling you out - Prove your statements.
Please educate and enlighten the rest of us on exactly how Procket's products are inferior to Junipers. I want specific examples that demonstrate you actually have some working knowledge of the product. Without proof, all of your rhetoric is just biased BS.

I have several friends in the industry that DO have hands-on experience with Procket's gear and they say its a very good product.

Finally I don't know what your beef with Tony Li is but GET OVER IT! Who cares anyway? Does it really matter that he posts here? You spend time posting here as well! If you took the time to look at the times he typically posts, it is usually sometime between 11:00pm and 4:00am in the morning. Just because he doesn't need as much beauty sleep as you is no reason to be jealous.

Bring it.

signmeup

Sisyphus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:05 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales > .. Can you elaborate? What do you mean by
> importance of SW package? ...

Modularity and engineering, mostly. One thing that's always been striking about high-end routers is that their software winds up being ugly spaghetti code within just a few years of the product's life. And that's not good enough for a product that's supposed to constitute the core of a carrier's infrastucture.

Rigorous software engineering methodology has been a neglected aspect of router software design -even though many will try to deny it- and from what I know the HFR went back to square one to solve that fundamental issue.
Sisyphus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:05 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales > ... Procket ... Tony Li ...

What is kinda sad is that it seems no one can post to these baords under his real name -provided it is a name people know and care about- and be taken at face value.

There has to be some big hidden agenda behind everything that's written. Perhaps I don't folow the boards closely enough, but I have to yet see TL blatantly drum up the company hype machine - I get the impression he merely offers his opinions on topics tha capture his attention, and like any company official doesn't really say much about topics that are close to home and might be perceived as somewhat compromising.

I know I changed my identity when enough people figured out who I was -and I am nowhere remoltely as notoriousl well known as Tony is- because I want to be free to talk about topics... and it doesn't mean I'd write any differently if people knew who I was (perhaps I'd run a spell-check more consistently, though).

To bring this back to topic - the HFR isn't cancelled. It's simply not what it was originally going to be, the project has changed a lot from its early blueprints.
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:17:06 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales It would be really really great to see more posts from people who know a lot more about the technologies without the egos of wanting to "educate" all of us. Tony Li posts on these boards for probably a large number of reasons.

Whats great is that there are many many more smart people who don't and thats sad. If you knew them and worked with them and met them you would understand that it is frustrating to not get their insights. They don't post because they are busy working. Tony just probably has more time on his hands these days as he has already licked and stamped all the "inspected by Tony Li" stickers onto his beta-routers (that is not a joke!) and just flies around pounding his chest that his routers are awesome to potential customers.

If Tony Li left procket that company would be done the next day. His name carries weight but it doesn't make a product good.

Pat
Tess 12/4/2012 | 11:17:07 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Netinsight

i need some input regarding this company and the technology
anyone?

http://www.convergedigest.com/...
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:13 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Thanks

EC
beowulf888 12/4/2012 | 11:17:14 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales The reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

Cisco still has a substantial number of people working on it.

beowulf888 12/4/2012 | 11:17:14 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Thanks, Tony. I always appreciate your posts. I see you and BobbyMax as the opposite ends of the LightReading Article Talk spectrum. Unfortunately the bell curve on this thread is weighted towards the BobbyMax side...

IP Observer wrote:
>Tony,
>Thank you so much Obi Wan Kenobi for enlighting the poor souls who have been without your technical expertise for the last couple of years.
vrparente 12/4/2012 | 11:17:14 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Edgecore & Tony,

Following on your conversation -- a word about features. This is where the "action" is. Adding features is what keeps routers from becoming commodities. If it wasn't for features, the market for IP routing would be like L2 wiring closet or switching -- it would become more commoditized.

As I understand the history of the GSR (during the time I placed the first PO to actually pay for 12012s -- i.e. not including trials) and later also ordered the first 12016's -- it was originally intended to be a "core" IP router -- no edge stuff like ACL's etc. But the superiority of the platform and need for that density, performance, and especially for high density POS, lead to looking at the GSR as the replacement for 7500's. With that came "edge" features like ACLs, LAN (Ethernet) interfaces, etc.

I remeber literally begging Cisco (and Juniper -- who originally said NO) to do GigE. In fact I can recall that the comittment to do GigE and ACLs came in the Dominion Brew Pub in Ashburn, VA after I promised to order hundreds of them. But that's an aside.

Security and application processing represent points of differentiated product offerings that are important for many customers. So I expect that we will continue to see the need for greater and greater processing power to support MPLS/VPLS/VPNs, etc.

-Victor Blake
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:15 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales I asked this question a few posts ago? Any insights?

THX

EC
IP Observer 12/4/2012 | 11:17:17 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony,

Thank you so much Obi Wan Kenobi for enlighting the poor souls who have been without your technical expertise for the last couple of years.
IP Observer 12/4/2012 | 11:17:18 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Echo2,
I was not referring to you when I posted message as it was certainly noticeable that your questions were not answered and they were legitimate questions.

I agree with you completely about prospects for company.
echo2 12/4/2012 | 11:17:19 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >Did you ever think that the posters who bring up >discussion about Procket in these message boards >also work there? Look how quickly Tony is up on >board responding to questions about Procket.

I am the one who started the Procket thread, and I did so by copying the question about Charlottes Web since Procket seems on its last legs even though their hype machine (one of the biggest ever in the history of startups), is still running. Tony of course was smart enough not to reply. FW23 who is so happy to be working at Procket that he must have been homeless before they hired him, is talking up Procket, however, failed to address my question about lack of CEO, VP of marketing, and VP of customer support. If you still think I work for Procket, then that is ok. I am here for fun, and not education.
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:17:20 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Pat,

I've been participating in these boards since they were originally created. You might find more of my posts under 'tony1athome'.

Tony
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:17:21 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony,

I have been reading this board for quite some time and only in the past year or maybe slightly longer if I am generous have I seen you so "active" on these boards. Where have you been the last 3 years while we all were not being properly educated on the "real" issues.

Pat
bugsbunny 12/4/2012 | 11:17:22 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Performance, performance, performance...

I know that HFR wasn't announced at Supercomm because of major bugs in the network processor and softwre. Trying to copy Junipers lead at 40Gbps, Cisco can only achive 50% line rate with certain packet sizes. This is standard Cisco underperformance, which can be termed hardly full rate or hardly fast reroute.

If the project took nearly 5 years, churned through so many engineers, and is a completely new software platform, it is most certainly a huge financial risk to anyone that would consider buying it.

Weighing in at 1300 lbs, a heavy foundation is required, or it'll fall right through my multistory building. I wonder if a hardwater fusion reactor is needed to power the beast.

Its funny that so many Cisco marketeers who post here defend the notion that smaller routers are better. Interesting theory since the hardware fails regularly.

I'm having fun ranting, so it's time I check out now.
lob 12/4/2012 | 11:17:22 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Exactly. And I also like to help educate folks on the real technical issues.

Tony - this is a losing game... The world will see the right way, but only after trying out all the wrong ones.

That's why I stopped telling people what I'm doing.
fw23 12/4/2012 | 11:17:23 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >Did you ever think that the posters who bring up >discussion about Procket in these message boards >also work there?

Did you ever think that many of the people who
complain about procket in these message boards
wanted to work there, but didn't meet the
standard.

The reason people discuss procket is that it is
a HOT company with a BIG future ahead of it.
With the chain-smoker and buddies gone, the
way is clear for them to reach an un-matched
level of success. They will soon leave juniper
choking on dust.

They have a united vision and all of the do-nothings and people in the way are gone now.

Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 11:17:23 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales No, I think many people are genuinely interested in Procket. And Tony, being a propeller-head (like many of us), genuinely likes to surf this message board.
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:17:23 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Exactly. And I also like to help educate folks on the real technical issues.

Tony
fw23 12/4/2012 | 11:17:24 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
The HFR program only exists to give cover to
cisco's minions in certain carriers. Whenver
difficult questions get raised about cisco's
aging technology at places like sprint or
SBC, the magic HFR slide set is revised to
encompass whatever features the competition
is touting at that moment.

I dont know anyone with any objectivity who
believes in the HFR. Its lost every head-to
-head comparision done
IP Observer 12/4/2012 | 11:17:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Did you ever think that the posters who bring up discussion about Procket in these message boards also work there? Look how quickly Tony is up on board responding to questions about Procket.

I could care less about Procket, just making an observation.

edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales We have heard this before, Is this true at all?

Can someone please shed some light?

THX

EC
Marmaduke 12/4/2012 | 11:17:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales > We are now hearing about a monster router by
> Cisco. What about Hyperchip and their core
> router??? Apparently, it is a beast that have
> everything the world needs.

I agree with you, but only that it's a beast...

> The only problem for now, getting the first customer

I think the real problem is more on software stability... do you think the world needs yet-another-unstable-core-router ? HFR on the right corner, Hyperchip on the left corner... place your bet!

This being said, I would REALLY like to so a startup succeed in that market... I think the whole industry needs it.

Marm
xip42 12/4/2012 | 11:17:25 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Why are companies making such big routers? The base unit is so big, expensive, etc who would want to deploy it and how many places can use a box that big?

As some people have pointed out, although bandwidth is growing, it is not easy to predict where the growth is and it may be very distributed. These big boxes ignore this, and assume massive amounts of traffic are coming though central locations.

Seems that we need much smaller routing building blocks which can easily be ganged together to handle the smallest locations to the largest without major headaches.

I understand that this is extremely complicated and difficult to effectively do. Maybe it defies the "laws of routing?" I don't know. All of you are smarter than me. But if the HFR is real, it indicates a huge amount of effort has been spent solving the wrong problem in the wrong way.

They should develop the SSR - Super Small Router and a SSR agregation (SSRa)device. It should be no bigger than 8x8 oc-192/10G.
AAL6 12/4/2012 | 11:17:26 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Again?
12monkeys 12/4/2012 | 11:17:26 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Hate to break this to everyone, but Cisco cancelled the HFR project months ago. This information is from various friends from within Cisco itself.
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:17:27 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Could not have said it better.. this is at least the 3rd or even 4th "router-related" article that has spawned discussions in which Tony Li offers his insight. I guess guys like Katz have much better things to do... they actually work on "real" product and produce "real" value.

Pat
signmeup 12/4/2012 | 11:17:28 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony DIDN'T hype Procket on this thread; someone asked him a specific question about Procket and he answered it. Period. In fact, Tony's comments show that there is a need for a clustered architecture.

Why would you be so concerned about discrediting Tony on a Cisco thread??? Perhaps you feel threatened?
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:17:28 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Desikar,

Two points: more of the 1Tb routers will just lead to the small switch penalty again.

Second, the point that I was trying to make is that with 100% growth, a system that is only 12x where we are today has a relatively short life span.

Tony
IP Observer 12/4/2012 | 11:17:28 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Who cares? Why is Tony Li spending so much time on message boards hyping his company? They aren't even mentioned in the article, yet he finds it necessary to turn it into Procket discussion. Procket's desperation is showing. Cisco or anyone else could care less about Procket.

Until you have a real deployment, focus on development.
AAL6 12/4/2012 | 11:17:29 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Discussion is interesting and, by its nature, highly speculative.
I doubt that the people who were (or are) involved in decision making wrt HFR are reading these posts (maybe they are, but are understandably quiet).
So, that leaves us with people who were either somehow involved in this project in the past, or who heard about it through rumours or grapevine.

As this project has been going on for at least 6 years now, it is understandable that the speculations abound - this is probably the longest going stealth project in Cisco history. Wham little I know about the Cisco, this is extremely unnatural for their culture and way of management->that, to a degree, explains why there were so many false starts and layoffs (project in Cisco lasts about a year or so normally)

Are they going to survive it, I don't know.

Marketing and sales teams will sell (or at least try to) anything, but do customers really need something like this now (years after the "internet is doubling every xxx days" hype)?

p.s.
This message board is also a way for marketing types to feel the pulse and glean info on some issues without sacrificing their credibility or giving away any clues about the future product.
Let's make them happy ;)
jamesbond 12/4/2012 | 11:17:29 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Finally, it is a great thing that the crucial importance of the SW package was recognized, and it's here where the HFR might have the biggest impact

---------------------

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by importance
of SW package? Do you mean something like RPMs, Tar balls etc? I am just not sure what you are
implying.

thanks
Sisyphus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:30 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Interesting discussion in general.

No one can blame Cisco for not trying hard to turn routers into the next generation class 5 switch equivalent, though, which does represent a phenomenal challenge and takes major guts. The Avici and Juniper products don't take the vision of the router as a core infrastructure product quite as far as the HFR does.

Nor can Cisco be blamed for going back to the drawing board a few times given the ambitious nature of the project. It is now certainly a more universally usable product than it was initially geared up to be, which is good.

Finally, it is a great thing that the crucial importance of the SW package was recognized, and it's here where the HFR might have the biggest impact.

One thing that's striking in the discussion is how the criticism stems from both accusing the HFR of both being too disruptive and not disruptive enough, which is a sure indication it is as of now a pretty misunderstood product.
desikar 12/4/2012 | 11:17:30 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony,

I have lots of respect for your technical views. However, have to disagree with your note on router capacity... Wouldn't the growing traffic need also be served by having more of the proven 1TB routers (instead of new 2 TB routers) and/or better management of traffic and possibly also by lower customer expectations on QoS (in return for lower cost per bit)?
At some point, of course it could be more cost-effective (taking into account technical and operational risks, etc.) to switch to something better - say, when it is just better to have 8x the capacity for example. But till then, falling prices, cost of training and debugging operations, etc. could postpone the drought for new technology, even in greenfield deployments.

IMO, what Cisco would be doing with the HFR if
it really does exist, is to assure customers that they can engage Cisco at any time in the future to tap into advanced technology routers - thus reducing the risk of being stranded if they go
with Cisco. So the HFR needs to keep up with the
latest technologies available to the competition, but does not necessarily need to be deployed to be of benefit to both Cisco and the service provider community, and to be an irritant to competitors bringing out intermediate technology steps.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the above..

-desikar

---------Tony Li wrote---------------------
According to the best available numbers (http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzk... the Internet is continuing to grow exponentially at 100%/year. If the market needs a terabit machine today, then it will need 2 terabits next year, four the year after that, then 8, then 16, 32, 64, etc.

Tony
RouterOttawa 12/4/2012 | 11:17:31 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Only parts of HFR have been done in Ottawa - too few people to do enough for such a big project Rumors are that they fired hardware guys couple of weeks agowhich could indicate that they are not needed any more?

Regrettably, the rumours are fact. They let 20-30 people go.
glad2Bgone 12/4/2012 | 11:17:31 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales BobbyMax

All your base are belong to us
glad2Bgone 12/4/2012 | 11:17:31 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales BobbyMax
signmeup 12/4/2012 | 11:17:32 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Based on the amount of csco FUD included in the article, I thought I would shed some light on the subject.

"As mentioned, Cisco has developed an entirely new operating system for the HFR."

Truth: This is cisco's vaunted ENA code that has been in development for years now - it started on the 7500 platform! I know first hand that they have gone through at least 4 complete purges of the development team, from the coders all the way to the managers. It has been close to scrapped at least 2 times for not being able to meet expectations. It runs approximately 30% SLOWER than IOS does. There is no WAY there can be any consistancy with this code as every 12 months or so everyone on the project either quits or is canned. Without consistancy you get bugs, regardless of whether it is a modular design or not. So you make the call: inexperienced sw coders + brand new hardware + inconsistent development = ??????

"For scaleability, an additional distributed route processor can be installed in any line-card slot. This processor is similar to Cisco's Distributed Cisco Express Forwarding (dCEF), deployed on its lower-end routing platforms"

Truth: So let's see, what version of the PFC is cisco at now? PFC3? So basically what you are saying is that anytime you need a new feature, you'll have to upgrade to the next version of "distributed route processor"? The truth is that cisco lags far behind in development of cutting-edge silicon, and the result is that the customer ends up paying. Sounds like good investment protection to me - for cisco that is...

" One chassis is 1,350 lbs. -- about as much as a very large moose -- and gobbles 12 kilowatts of power."

Truth: How do you even look at this in a positive fashion? Especially given the fact that the competition can provide the same density with 1/2 the space and 1/4 of power requirements!! This was for ONE CHASSIS!


Why do I care about the truth of project "Q"? Because it is laughable how cisco positions the HFR as a next-generation router. There is nothing next-generation about the HFR - Procket and Juniper already have products far superior to it, and are shipping them today. So by the time the HFR actually does hit the street, it won't be next-generation, it will be the same old story: a day (or year) too late, and way too many $$$$.
jstuart_99 12/4/2012 | 11:17:32 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales mboeing wrote:
"What I see is this: IBM is doing quite well and Microsoft is creating inferior products. So what is the lession learned?"

Well, in addition to Microsoft's market cap, they forced IBM to completely re-invent itself as a services organization first and a sw/hw company second. Kudos to IBM for being able to pull it off, but the point was that every generation brings out new competition in the market. Cisco has already demonstrated a lack of ability to produce quality products for the service provider market. The market dictates that someone fill that need, and you are starting to see that happen.
AAL6 12/4/2012 | 11:17:32 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Only parts of HFR have been done in Ottawa - too few people to do enough for such a big project (BTW, did you see Pentagon Wars movie? - time and money spent there for BFV approaches this one ;). Rumors are that they fired hardware guys couple of weeks ago which could indicate that they are not needed any more?
IOS-NG was based on QNX Neutrino kernel - and IOS ported on top of it.
The HFR development sucked a lot of money and effort - it was supposed to be released in 2001/2002 when the demand for god boxes was looking good (from 1999 perspective).
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:33 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales What I see is this: IBM is doing quite well and Microsoft is creating inferior products. So what is the lession learned?

----------------------------------

IBM Market Cap 150B

MSFT Market Cap 300B

EC
mboeing 12/4/2012 | 11:17:33 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "And the dual OS approach will never be seen as a plus, as no matter how much code is shared, even a minor
difference will require qualification prior to deployment in any tier 1 network."

If you have a closer look a SP networks based on Cisco routers then you will find different code version on different classes of routers. For example edge boxes will run other code then core boxes. Cisco 7500 routers will run other code then c7600, ESR 10k or GSR 12k boxes.

Service providers typically have very rigid process of lab testing and limited deployment prior to delpoying any new code/box/feature.

My conclusion is that having another box with another OS does not really matter. Service providers have the process to deal with that. Other factors, such as capex/opex/features/stability/performance, are much more important.
mboeing 12/4/2012 | 11:17:34 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "If we look at history, IBM thought of Microsoft much in the same way... Look how that turned out."

What I see is this: IBM is doing quite well and Microsoft is creating inferior products. So what is the lession learned?
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:17:35 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Bulk reply:

routethus: Procket is customer driven and will do what customers need.

veluthru: As we have found over the years, if the bandwidth is not aggregated, then we come to suffer the "small switch penalty". Basically to combine many smaller switches, you need many more of them and many interconnects. Today folks that play this game have to pay for the interconnects between routers as they would for customer facing interfaces. This is onerous. Assuming that the traffic demands it (i.e., there are large Tier 1's), it is more efficient for them to use a larger, scalable system. I will certainly grant you that if all of the Tier 1's implode and everything is run by Mom & Pop's OC-3 shop, that the Internet could grow without this need. However, that seems exceedingly unlikely at this point.

teng100: Whether bandwidth is sold as best effort or not doesn't really matter. The Internet will continue to grow and someone will find a way to be sufficiently efficient to make money at it. It is up to the vendors and carriers to find this way. Hopefully it won't involve questionable accounting practices. ;-)

Tony

stomper 12/4/2012 | 11:17:36 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Let's assume that the rumors are correct, and a
router fitting the specs outlined in this article
will be formally announced in the near future.

The question: what will this mean to the market ?

I think it is safe to assume that all major
potential customers already know a significant
amount under NDA. If the product has reached at
least the alpha milestone yet, it probably has
seen some testing in a few labs.

The purpose of an annoucement is publicize their
direction and strategy, and market their product
as the best solution - maybe worth waiting
for. Any reversal on specifications or major delay
in release dates from that point on will be an
embarrassment which will be harped on during
quarterly earnings calls and show up in the stock
price.

The design decisions they have made thus far tell
us a lot. The most notable thing is simply that
they believe a two-tier product line is necessary,
lower end running IOS and HFR running new stuff.
Further, they believe multi-bay scalability is
important.

From the customer point of view, new software is
always a double edge sword. It might be better,
but it will definitely have new bugs. And the dual
OS approach will never be seen as a plus, as no
matter how much code is shared, even a minor
difference will require qualification prior to
deployment in any tier 1 network. It appears Cisco
will now place the burden of supporting two major
code bases on themselves and their customers.

Their support of multi-bay scalability is
interesting in that it validates competition
with similar claims, where in the past they have
stated that it was not necessary.

Finally, by designing the HFR as a new product
with all new hardware and OS (probably necessary),
they will have to compete against other vendors in
an apples-to-apples core router solution bakeoff.
When their core router 12K series was simply newer
hardware, they might have been able to leverage
software which was already qualified in a
customers edge router deployments. By definition,
it weakens their end-to-end solution story from a
non-business perspective. Now they will need to
consistently have the best core and edge solution
or a customer will have no technical reason to
stick with Cisco.

-S
teng100 12/4/2012 | 11:17:36 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales "If you instead use bigger routers, the capacity of the internet can increase without increasing the diameter, and tbe routing cost (measured in hops per packet) remains fixed. This is simply another way to say that a bigger router beats a cluster of smaller routers, other things being equal."

If you can sell the bandwidth not just
best effort traffic.


arch_1 12/4/2012 | 11:17:37 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales I thought the discusion was about the need for additonal Control-plane processing. Tony is describing a "feature creep" phenomenon. As ISPs add more features to the core, the amount of control processing horsepower per unit of forwarded bandwidth in a router increases.

On another note: You are correct that internet data growth is distributed and can then be solved in a distributed fashion. However, as the bandwidth increases, the bandwidth density also increases. In any particular location, it's cheaper to use one big router than a bunch of little routers, because the interconnect costs of the little routers are fairly horrific.

Here's a way to think about this: If you have only a fixed size router, you can still grow a a big internet by using many of them, but if you do, the network diameter must grow. This means that each packet uses more router resources, so the cost of routers per packet goes up with the diameter.

If you instead use bigger routers, the capacity of the internet can increase without increasing the diameter, and tbe routing cost (measured in hops per packet) remains fixed. This is simply another way to say that a bigger router beats a cluster of smaller routers, other things being equal.

As a rough rule of thumb the cost to administer an network increases as the number of routers increases. The exact shape of the curve differs depending on which protocols and services you provide, but the overall rule will hold, so again, fewer bigger routers will beat more smaller routers.

Note that it may very well make sense to use a CPU cluster in the control plane within a router. The control plane bandwidth is a tiny percentage of the data bandwidth, so the equation is different.
veluthuru 12/4/2012 | 11:17:37 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Tony,

Your analysis assumes the network is centralized - the traffic growth is experienced by the same nodes. However, in a distributed architecture (as in the case of Internet) this is not true. The exponential growth in the traffic can in fact be supported, to some extent, by the same nodes but by increasing the number of nodes. The increase in traffic is perhaps due to the growth of the network footprint itself.

In summary, exponential growth in Internet traffic does not necessarily translate into similar requirement from the nodes (of course, core router marketing machine would want you
to believe otherwise :-)
routethus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:39 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >> The control plane workload continues to grow rapidly because some folks continue to find more ways to spend control plane cycles. <<

so which of the following can we then expect Procket not to be supporting:

BGP/Layer 3 VPNs
BGP/Layer 2 VPNs
BGP/Routing Policy Distribution
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:39 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales THX Tony
RouterOttawa 12/4/2012 | 11:17:40 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Isn't the HFR being done in Ottawa?
Isn't it based on QNX?

The execution nightmare is that this thing has so many technology rocket science elements that it is taking forever to build, and is slipping 6 months every six months. When and if it is finally announced (say Supercomm) carriers will need to test so much new stuff for at least a year. Mostly the HFR is way to keep customers busy and discourage them from buying competitive product...

Deja vu all over again? http://www.lightreading.com/bo...

Gea: all your base belong to booby. LOL.
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:17:40 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
Edgecore,

The control plane workload continues to grow rapidly because some folks continue to find more ways to spend control plane cycles. If folks would commit to not adding new features, we could probably stop. Or at least not grow faster than Moore's law. Since that's not going to happen, the control plane will always need more cycles.

That said, SMP isn't the only way to get there. SMP is good for problems where you don't need a lot of memory bandwidth and you only need a small number of processors. There are other techniques for better scalability. Of course, this is all computer architecture 201.

Tony
reoptic 12/4/2012 | 11:17:40 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales HFR is a nightmare for Cisco, the only question is which is a bigger nightmare, the strategy or the execution. The strategy of building a monster scalable box with huge footprint and weight while at the same time redesigning the whole software base is the same strategy that was pursued by every scalable router startup; most have gone away and the rest are struggling or dream of getting to the point of struggling. Why? Only that carriers really don't crave too many boxes like this and they are really hard to execute. Juniper was smarter here, they just delivered slideware and have not really put resources into making the scalable implementation work...too busy trying to make it work 40Gb density instead of 20Gb like it does today.
The execution nightmare is that this thing has so many technology rocket science elements that it is taking forever to build, and is slipping 6 months every six months. When and if it is finally announced (say Supercomm) carriers will need to test so much new stuff for at least a year. Mostly the HFR is way to keep customers busy and discourage them from buying competitive product...
So what's worse, the strategy or execution? Huge Failed Router either way.
andropat 12/4/2012 | 11:17:41 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales AAL5,

Are you serious? Talk about drinking the cisco kool-aid. If you are a customer you are the reason most of the cisco sales people I know from the mid to late 90s no longer have to work.

You are correct in that new cards brought higher speeds and such. Sure a card has to change from oc48 to oc192. The key issue here is that they release enhanced cards within a h/w speed. Such as engine 4 then engine 4+. The 4+ finally caught up to filtering, qos, rate-limiting, etc., that the engine 4 did not. This can be spoken of in countless cases. I know one ISP that bought a bunch of 4+ cards to do something the 4 card could not and it still didn't work at scale. Now a few million dollars later they are stuck with 4+ cards that are providing no real additional value over the 4 cards.

Pat
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:41 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Tony,

HFR supports SMP, another reason for moving to the new OS...but I digress.

What is your opinion of the processing power on the control plane for the years to come. We seem to be seeing processors with multiple core (Broadcom and PMC Sierra come to mind, as does Intel's hyperthreading), we seem to be seeing more SMP architecture where we tightly souple single processors to have them work on the same set of thread with a coherent view of memeory (aka tightly coupled SMP).

Does the control plane of the future really need all this performance? Are routing protocols written in way to take advantage of concurrency/parallelism? Can they be re written to be that way?

WIll the control plane processors of the future have to be big endian chips, or does Intel have a shot on the control plane in a few years?

Lots of questions, but its cuz I care :-)

Thanks Tony,

EC

PS- Gea, UDAMAN, thanks for coming through

jstuart_99 12/4/2012 | 11:17:42 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales AAL5 wrote:
"Interesting argument but not exactly based on reality. E0/E1 are OC-12 based cards first released when the 12000 first was released, a customers decision to upgrade to E2 was not because it had 'features' E0 did not, the decision to upgrade was because this was a OC-48 based card, i.e. it gave increase switching capacity and density. "


Well that is one way to twist the truth - how about the real reality?

The upgrade process you described below provided cisco a continual revenue stream at the expense of the customer. You stated that "all core networking companies are bound by the hardware technology limits of the time ", but in reality it was only cisco that failed to keep up with the technologies. Cisco's first OC-192 card was in truth an OC-48 card with OC-192 optics, designed to keep customers from switching to juniper who had a line rate OC-192 card. The same goes for the original OC-48 card, which could only forward at OC-12 speeds. Your argument is the same one that cisco's salespeople use, but in reality it is just a poor excuse for inferior products.

The problem is that their "technology limits" seem to be about 2-3 years behind what others are capable of doing. As long as people continue to make excuses for why they continually produce inferior products, they will never change.

I suppose IOS is not really that bad, it's just a natural extension of the "technology limits" of cisco programmers....

Frankly, I am quite suprised people still believe cisco's crap.

dwdm 12/4/2012 | 11:17:43 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales AAL5,

Very good explanation and it does make sense for a hardware platform. However, does the market really need an HFR?
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 11:17:43 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales
According to the best available numbers (http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzk... the Internet is continuing to grow exponentially at 100%/year. If the market needs a terabit machine today, then it will need 2 terabits next year, four the year after that, then 8, then 16, 32, 64, etc.

Tony
AAL5 12/4/2012 | 11:17:44 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales jstuart_99 said "Cisco has continually forced its customers to live with crappy code, line card upgrades for every new feature that comes out (anyone remember engine0,1,2,3,4 line cards?)"

"Interesting" argument but not exactly based on reality. E0/E1 are OC-12 based cards first released when the 12000 first was released, a customers decision to upgrade to E2 was not because it had 'features' E0 did not, the decision to upgrade was because this was a OC-48 based card, i.e. it gave increase switching capacity and density.

E4 was the first OC-192 card, an upgrade to this is also done for density/switching capacity reasons. The E3 engine which is a replacement for E2 OC-48 cards was possible because hardware technology had moved on since E2 was initially designed and it's now possible to add hardware to do more edge features at OC-48 line rate.

When designing switching hardware all core networking companies are bound by the hardware technology limits of the time i.e. clock speeds, FPGA capacity, Asic complexity, power budgets, board space budgets, memory capacity, memory access bandwidth etc.

Criticizing the ability to upgrade line cards to better/faster versions as time and hardware progress is similar to criticizing micro-processor companies for not sticking with 8-bit processors with a 1 Mhz clock.

AAL5
jstuart_99 12/4/2012 | 11:17:47 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales change_is_good wrote:
"csco thinks of procket like triumph the dog thinks of procket - "for me to poop on".

It's that type of thinking by cisco that allowed companies like procket to start up. Cisco has continually forced its customers to live with crappy code, line card upgrades for every new feature that comes out (anyone remember engine0,1,2,3,4 line cards?), and poor support.

If we look at history, IBM thought of Microsoft much in the same way... Look how that turned out.

routethus 12/4/2012 | 11:17:47 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >> csco could care less about procket. <<

of course, at one time Cisco couldn't care less about Juniper either, and let's not forget that Cisco wanted to buy Procket a few years ago.

cisco's internal hype about whether they do or do not care about someone is kind of irrelevant to the case, it is merely the usual bluster. that should not be taken as an endorsement of procket though, merely as an ambivilance towards the internal cheerleading at cisco.
change_is_good 12/4/2012 | 11:17:47 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales >> Such an announcement has been made by CISCO to blunt Procket.

csco could care less about procket.

csco thinks of procket like triumph the dog thinks of procket - "for me to poop on".
AAL5 12/4/2012 | 11:17:50 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Lay off the crack pipe Booby,

As much as you would like to deny it, HFR is for real.

AAL5
BobbyMax 12/4/2012 | 11:17:50 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales It is all fary tale planted by Cisco. There is no need for such a router as the core bandwiidth demand is decreasing very fast. More Procket has the oproduct in place which cam neet the demands of 9-% of the core vendors. Cisco is silent about the availability of the product. The product may not be needed ny the service p[roviders. Further more, the product may not brn IXCs and CLECs. The market which is looking to materuallise may never bear fruits. Such an announcement has been nade by CISCO to blunt Procket.
yikes_stripes 12/4/2012 | 11:17:50 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Wrong as usual. The thing is pretty much as LR describes. It's a monster.
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:50 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Oh ya, the conspiracy theory!

Brutal post...I finally get to use the "ignore author feature".

Gea, can you please let him have it for me?

THX

EC
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 11:17:51 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales If any operator is thinking to introduce this product in the network, they should understand that it's a pretty new HW and SW platform from an enterprise company that has a multiprotocol router since early 80s... how difficult will be to have stable system???
--------------------------------------

The hardware is very new...plus its all new processors (at least new in Cisco land)..and lots of them! Should be interesting...

On the SW side that is a good question....this router will run in a totally memory protected sw environment, which hopefully has helped Cisco find bugs quicker during testing vs the older monolihic IOS where you could spend 6 months finding bugs...

EC
Dindon 12/4/2012 | 11:17:53 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales HFR stand for High Financial Risk

If any operator is thinking to introduce this product in the network, they should understand that it's a pretty new HW and SW platform from an enterprise company that has a multiprotocol router since early 80s... how difficult will be to have stable system???
echo2 12/4/2012 | 11:17:53 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Anyone heard anything? Do they still exist?
Did they ever get a CEO?
Did they ever get a VP of marketing?
Dig they ever get a VP of tech support?
Yoda88us 12/4/2012 | 11:17:54 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales FYI: The HFR isn't the official name, and the 'F' doesn't stand for 'Fast'. Recall that the GSR 12000 used to be called the BFR before its release, which stood for Big F'ing Router.

dishwasher 12/4/2012 | 11:17:54 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales Anyone heard anything? Do they still exist?
nocompromise 12/4/2012 | 11:17:56 PM
re: Source: Cisco's HFR Tips the Scales We are now hearing about a monster router by Cisco. What about Hyperchip and their core router??? Apparently, it is a beast that have everything the world needs.

The only problem for now, getting the first customer.
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE