On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Bryan Fields wrote:
And they only have to process maybe 2mbit/s of control traffic during
busy hour. The rest is handled by dedicated hardware/ASIC's. Each one
has a fully redundant hardware circuit pack and a bunch of monitoring to
switch over in case one fails.
I'd i
On 11/12/12 1:21 AM, Kasper Adel wrote:
> Is it because C5 softswitches have expensive hardware, advanced software
> and dual asics? I would have never imagined that any vendor is capable of
> upgrading fpd's/ASICs ucode without a hit unless there are multiple chips
> continuously syncing with each
Hi Frank,
Is it because C5 softswitches have expensive hardware, advanced software
and dual asics? I would have never imagined that any vendor is capable of
upgrading fpd's/ASICs ucode without a hit unless there are multiple chips
continuously syncing with each other.
Regards,
Kim
On Monday, Nov
We do it on our Class 5 softswitch ... and it works consistently. There may
be a few seconds, once, where a new call can't be made, but most people will
re-dial. It just works.
It can be done, but the product has to be built with that in mind.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Kasper Adel
On 11/8/12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Phil wrote:
> NSR isn't ISSU.
The equipment vendors call upgrades with NSR failover, ISSU; if their
marketing people feel that a 0.5 or 6 second hit is "good enough"..
If you care about the 0.5 seconds, it's important you speak their
lang
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Felipe Zanchet Grazziotin
wrote:
...
> If your silicon vendor supports BSD's, of course.
> From my (little) experience most vendors SDK will be available to
> Linux and vxWorks but not BSD.
> This limits companies that are building equipments based on third
> parti
On 11/11/12, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Which isn't really a problem, none of the control plane stuff needs
> to run in the kernel. The only thing that needs to run in the
> kernel is the device driver(s) to talk to the forwarding plane
Yes. But avoiding kernel mode is a consideration, eve
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> If you're on supported CPU's, the BSD's are likely to be a better
> choice if you want to avoid legal entanglements. Otherwise, if you
> don't mind code disclosure, Linux supports more platforms. Both
> are relatively mature, feature-full oper
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> ... Or is GPL not really problematic
> issue, as you can hide your intellectual property in binary kernel modules?
GPLv2, which governs the Linux Kernel, does tolorate use of
binary kernel modules under some conditions (the classic
example is th
- Forwarded message from Ben Mendis -
From: Ben Mendis
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 08:37:13 -0500
To: byzant...@hacdc.org
Subject: Re: [HacDC:Byzantium] Re: OT: Hurricane retweet-2-smtp.
Reply-To: byzant...@hacdc.org
We are in an interesting situation. Our call for hardware for Byzantium was
> On (2012-11-11 08:50 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
> > linux has become a fad in the vendor community. it seems to lend
> > legitimacy to their products in some way, witness this discussion.
> > but linux has the gpl poison. so, any code that they wish to keep
> > proprietary is in userland.
>
> I
> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:07:27 -0500
> Subject: Re: OT: Hurricane retweet-2-smtp.
> From: chris
>
> It made me lol a bit that their website specifically says this:
>
> *Unlike most mesh implementations, a Byzantium Mesh requires no specialized
> equipment that may not be easy to get during an
It made me lol a bit that their website specifically says this:
*Unlike most mesh implementations, a Byzantium Mesh requires no specialized
equipment that may not be easy to get during an emergency, just an x86
computer with at least one 802.11 a/b/g/n wireless interface.*
yet now we are in searc
In article you write:
>linux has become a fad in the vendor community. it seems to lend
>legitimacy to their products in some way, witness this discussion.
>but linux has the gpl poison. so, any code that they wish to keep
>proprietary is in userland.
Which isn't really a problem, none of the c
Saku Ytti (saku) writes:
>
> I've sometimes wondered why Linux is so common, and not FreeBSD.
Historical reasons and good timing.
> Is it easier to hire people if you use Linux?
As opposed to... ?
> Or is GPL not really problematic issue,
> as you can hide your intellectual pro
> I've sometimes wondered why Linux is so common, and not FreeBSD.
juniper is currently freebsd
> Is it easier to hire people if you use Linux?
i think it's just perceived as having more customer acceptance.
> Or is GPL not really problematic issue
my lawyer tells me it is very problematic
ra
On (2012-11-11 08:50 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
> linux has become a fad in the vendor community. it seems to lend
> legitimacy to their products in some way, witness this discussion.
> but linux has the gpl poison. so, any code that they wish to keep
> proprietary is in userland.
I've sometimes
17 matches
Mail list logo
