Cisco Turns Routers Into Linux App Servers

symbolset writes "InternetNews is reporting that Cisco's new Application eXtension Platform turns several models of Cisco switches into Linux application servers. With certified libraries in C, Java and Perl, developers will be able to use a downloadable SDK to build their apps. The AXP server is just another module in a Cisco switch running Cisco's own derivation of a modern Linux distro (Kernel 2.6.x) specifically hardened to run on that particular hardware. Modules will include up to 1.4-GHz Intel Pentiums with 2 GB RAM and a 160 GB hard drive."

Comments

What I want from Cisco

[Midnight Thunder]

Great and I applaud them for doing something truly nerdy. What I am still waiting for is proper for a CISCO VPN client that works well under Linux and MacOS X, and not just Windows. It is irritating to enable firewall requirements, only to find that the only version that supports it is CISCO VPN Client for Windows.

Rant over, now you may mod me down.

I don't get it

[seanadams.com]

So this is a whole hardware server module that you stuff into a switch? Why?

A switch (or router, whatever) chassis is a ridiculously valuable piece of real estate... why would you want to spend that slot space plugging in PCs when they could just as easily be somewhere else, on the end of an ethernet cable?

Or is this intended for some highly specialized application where the linux system in tightly integrated with the host hardware in some way?

Re:I don't get it

[menace3society]

I think it's Cisco trying to muscle in on the server market. When you think servers, you don't think Cisco. You think Sun, IBM, HP, Dell, etc. But when you think routers and switches, you think Cisco. So if a Cisco rep can come along and say, "Hey, look, this is a piece of networking hardware, not a server, but it can do everything a server can for less money. Plus if you get this it's one less piece of equipment that can fail on you," they can start getting orders for these. If you were a PHB, would you rather have two boxes that each do one thing, or one box that does everything, and is super-cool "new" gear to boot?

It's like DEC with the PDP-1. Everyone *knew* in those days that a "computer" was a big, room-sized monstrosity that cost upwards of a million dollars and required a staff of dozens just to run; people figured there was only demand for 10 or so of those things on the planet. But DEC didn't sell "computers," they sold "Programmable Digital Processors," so companies bought them. The rest is history, and I guess Cisco is banking on being able to pull off the same thing with their new gear.

Re:I don't get it

[CastrTroy]

Why would you need a switch if everything is housed in a single box?

MTBF?

[lohphat]

The point on making the f/w an appliance is that it has a predictable operating profile and known MTBF and reliability.

By opening it up as an app server, you're encouraging turning your key gateway security device into a one-off, unique, unpredictable infrastructure component.

Hardened my ass

[Lord Kestrel]

Cisco claiming a piece of software they make is hardened is absurd. In the past, they've used Redhat 7.1 as the base for their appliances, shipping security software with 5 year old versions of openssh and Apache, and then tried to claim they were "hardened". After breaking in, they turn out to be off the shelf RH 7.1, just without cups running.

Cisco and software do not get along. They make ok hardware (overpriced, but it works), but they have never once made a good piece of software.