Slashdot has an article this morning on the OpenBSD people’s new BGP daemon, OpenBGPD. In essence, the OpenBSD people did the same thing that they’ve done repeatedly before, and taken a protocol that didn’t have an open, secure implementation and provided a clean, minimalistic, BSD-licensed tool.
Personally, I find OpenBGPD kind of fascinating, because I’ve worked with router jockeys for years, and I get dragged into “can we run a BGP daemon on this PC” discussions with surprising frequency.
OpenBGPD’s stated goals include this fun little snippet:
Provide a lean implementation, sufficient for a majority. Don’t try to support each and every obscure usage case, but cover the typical ones
And that’s where my problem lies. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked for a “lean implementation” of BGP. Every time I’ve been dragged into a BGP discussion, it’s been because network engineers have been trying to do something bizarre and creative with BGP, and the tools that they’re used to using aren’t sufficient. For instance, at Internap, we wanted to add per-prefix, per-peer prepending for a huge number of prefixes, and we wanted to change the path selection algorithm to include a bunch of extra information that we had on reachability and performance. In other cases, I’ve been asked for simulators and BGP loggers that could feed BGP prefix reachability information into a database. Inevitably, every time someone needed just a “lean implementation,” they’d already have a Cisco box handy and they’d use it instead of monkeying with BGP on a PC.
That’s not to say the PCs make lousy routers or anything like that–the price/performance is impossible to match with anything from Cisco–but that the totals costs involved in any BGP peering that I’ve seen make the cost of the router little more then noise in the equation. If you’re paying tens of thousands of dollars per month for multiple pipes to providers, then what does saving $20k on a router buy you, besides maintenance and reliability headaches and a hard time finding network engineers familiar with your setup? Most of the time, it’s cheaper to spend $20k on hardware and make it up on productivity and reduced downtimes.
So, while OpenBGPD is cool, I’m not sure how useful it really is outside of test labs and maybe small ISPs, if there are any of them left. On the other hand, I’d love a good OpenBGPD-ish OSPF implementation. I’ve played with Zebra, and the whole design of the thing just rubs me wrong (although Quagga might be better). I need to remember to actually give Xorp a try, too. OSPF is more useful inside of existing networks, and it makes a lot more sense on a LAN then BGP does.
When it gets down to it, I suppose my real point is this: it’s largely pointless to scale PC-based routers up to make them compete toe-to-toe against Cisco’s big WAN routers, because the network costs and the maintenance costs of doing one-off routers works against us. It’s also really hard to get reliable, well-tested WAN interface cards for anything faster then a T1. Try finding a PCI OC-12 POS card with Linux drivers sometime.
On the other hand, other alternatives make a huge amount of sense: * Scale them down. You can build a cheap Linux router for almost no money these days–look at the Linksys WRT54G. * Scale them out. Imagine a medium sized company replacing all of their assorted branch office routers with PCs talking to DSL and providing QoS, routing, firewalling, VPNs, VoIP, etc. It’s expensive to do it once, but you can replicate the work onto a hundred devices for very little additional cost. * Push them into niches. There are cases where the fantastic flexibility of PCs can make them much more useful then an equivalent Cisco. Linux, for example, has no problem running multiple routing tables and a fantastic number of firewall rules. You can do amazingly creative things with just the stock tools, if you can figure out how to use them.