Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Router Rumors

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the google-cars-too-pass-it-on dept.

Google 267

An anonymous reader writes "There's a new rumor that Google is developing its own router. The company won't comment on the story, but it's been in the hardware business for a while and expanded its presence with Android. If Larry Ellison can go halvsies with HP on a server, then Eric Schmidt should certainly be able to make Cisco nervous."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

one more reason... (5, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361229)

...to procrastinate on the CCNA test.

Re:one more reason... (2, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361383)

why procrastinate? the CCNA really isn't that hard of a cert to get.. the NP's are difficult.. and no mater what google does.. if you have an IE you will be able to find a job

Re:one more reason... (-1, Troll)

bigblacknigger (1440657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361689)

Because you dropped a brown rope this morning the size of a small black child. At one point you weren't sure if you were taking a shit or if you were getting fucked by a giant black cock. As it turns out, it was the latter. Bite my ass dickweed.

All that I need now is google underwear! (5, Funny)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361231)

All I need now is google underwear that twitters for me with real time gps tracking so I know where I've been.

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361277)

Do you really want to wear underwear that's in perpetual beta? Ouch!

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (0)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361341)

Let's hope that the router itself dosen't use Google's color scheme, or else it may look like this! [lego.com]

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361759)

Bricks and pants..

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (4, Interesting)

pemerson (179241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361831)

Don't hold your breath, have you seen the Google Appliance [google.com] ?

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (2, Interesting)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362085)

I for one welcome a little color to my server room. See their search appliance, and wtf does hassellhoff have to do with one? http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/HoffGSA-767114.jpg [blogspot.com] Anyway, server equipment has been traditionally shades of grey for too long now. http://www.itmweb.com/bimages/lonestarsc01.jpg [itmweb.com] I'm sick of it. I want to see some SGI purple

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (4, Funny)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362333)

I loved getting the big yellow Google box at my last job. And it came with a black Google t-shirt too! I had one job setting up a NOC for sextracker.com back in the day. I ordered 10,000ft of Cat5 in hot pink. Made it easy to find my stuff in the colo.

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362357)

Come to think of it the jr. neteng I hired there now is a Sr. neteng at Google. Hmmm..

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (3, Funny)

KUHurdler (584689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362535)

...and wtf does hassellhoff have to do with one?

serverbay watch

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361357)

don't you have roadmarks for that already ?

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361363)

Always useful the "night after", actually for some of us, telling others where we have been might not always be the best idea.....

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361697)

I want to geotag all my farts, can we build in geotagging fart detection?

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362279)

Unless there is someone in your shorts with you, you should already know from where they came. All your really need is a dispersal pattern.

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362171)

I don't know about you, but in-pants tracking is not my idea of "a good thing."

Re:All that I need now is google underwear! (0, Redundant)

fizzup (788545) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362323)

All I need now is google underwear that twitters for me with real time gps tracking so I know where I've gone.

ftfy

In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361235)

Even looking at Google from the outside, even by just knowing that they have hundreds of thousands of desktop machines behind their world class search, even just knowing that those machines have to be connected someway somehow .... you know they
  1. Already have something that beats what Cisco offers.
  2. Have been testing/improving it for years.
  3. Can simply point to their success as reasons you should buy into their technology (no matter how proprietary it is).

I seem to remember rumors of them building their own insane (10 GbE) hardware switches [nyquistcapital.com] . And I don't think that's hard to imagine as nothing on the market at the time could possibly meet their needs.

Of course, there's a lot of questions that remain to be answered ... like many claims they could not be operating on TCP/IP stacks on the inside. Because it's such a resource hog in some respects but that's irrelevant--I'm certain they can apply some of their ideas universally. I would put my money on them being the leader in research on networks and network theory ... probably past Cisco even (although behind the NSA as no one's ever sure about those guys). I feel that networking is so closely tied to their bread and butter search application that they should be dumping huge R&D into that field. I can't offer proof but it certainly makes sense to me.

And all I can say is that it's about time someone put pressure on the home & enterprise networking hardware companies. What a stagnant squabbling market that has become.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (5, Insightful)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361487)

And all I can say is that it's about time someone put pressure on the home & enterprise networking hardware companies. What a stagnant squabbling market that has become.

The fine article seems to be down, so I can't tell what it claims. But I suppose the "Google Router", if it exists, will put an end to Juniper and Cisco in the same way as Bigtable does for Oracle, PostgreSQL etc.: it doesn't because the technology is so fundamental for Google's success that they simply don't share it.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (5, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362241)

But I suppose the "Google Router", if it exists, will put an end to Juniper and Cisco in the same way as Bigtable does for Oracle, PostgreSQL etc.: it doesn't because the technology is so fundamental for Google's success that they simply don't share it.

Reading TFA, It is basically saying that the loss of Google alone as a customer would doom Juniper. It doesn't matter if Google shares its technology or not as far as Juniper is concerned.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362497)

Isn't Juniper's business plan to install FreeBSD on cheap embedded hardware and pretend that it's special-secret-proprietary-magic? I wouldn't be surprised if Google could undercut them, for in-house use at the very least.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (4, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361531)

"And all I can say is that it's about time someone put pressure on the home & enterprise networking hardware companies. What a stagnant squabbling market that has become."

If they do get into network tech, I seriously hope they release some home routers. I'm probably not the only one tired of having to reboot home routers every so often, especially with multiple people connected and having their wireless connection suddenly drop.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (4, Insightful)

3waygeek (58990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361633)

Simple solution -- quit buying crappy (i.e. Linksys) routers. I've used Netgear routers for 10+ years, and have never had to reboot or replace a broken router.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (4, Interesting)

duguk (589689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361795)

I've had problems with both Netgear and Linksys routers, usually because of the cheap PSU's they use. Put it on a UPS and haven't had to reboot my home Linksys or Netgear (WRT54G and DG834N WDS'd together) in years now.

Mostly seems to stem from power fluctuations, google search [google.co.uk] brings up nothing specific, but anecdotal evidence on my part and some customers seem to agree. Anyone else have this?

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361885)

Our old Linksys at work (small office) was on a UPS, but died pretty frequently. 28 hours and counting with the new Linksys, a nice, if statistically insignificant, improvement.

PSU (1)

barneco (1353761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361979)

I hadn't noticed til you mentioned it, but yes, I have not had to reboot my Linksys v6(running ddwrt) for at least 5 months, which is when I plugged it into my UPS. Nice!

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (1)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362375)

Simple solution -- quit buying crappy (i.e. Linksys) routers.

I've been using a Linksys WRT54 for 2 years, now, and have never had any problems with it. Before that, I used a d-Link DLG624 for 2 years and had frequent loss of connection requiring rebooting the router.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362507)

Newsflash: you are a part of the crappy router club with your Netgear.

Yes, I can talk. I have a real Cisco router at home.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361649)

I'd be very surprised if they had anything that could, or would even be interested in, solving the basic problem with home routers, which is that they are cheap crap and built right down to price. All the ingredients necessary to build highly reliable home routers are already in place, it's just that they cost enough that people will leave them on the shelf, en masse, in order to buy $40 d-link boxes.

There are plenty of options for robust routers, even smallish ones; but the cost of entry will be 2 or 3 times higher than the cheapies.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361871)

"I'm probably not the only one tired of having to reboot home routers every so often..."

Get a Soekris box [soekris.com] and roll your own firewall/router. It is not hard to do. My uptime is measured by any changes I make to it.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362495)

"I'm probably not the only one tired of having to reboot home routers every so often..."

Get a Soekris box [soekris.com] and roll your own firewall/router. It is not hard to do. My uptime is measured by any changes I make to it.

So, if you made 4 changes to it, your uptime would be 4?

I'm impressed.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362565)

PC Engines [pcengines.ch] are another option. Their boards are very similar to the Soekris ones, but easier to find in Europe. They run OpenBSD (and FreeBSD/Linux) very nicely.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362647)

I'm probably not the only one tired of having to reboot home routers every so often

That'll teach you to buy netgear :)

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (5, Funny)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361739)

although behind the NSA as no one's ever sure about those guys

The real secret of the NSA is that they've got a zombie Alan Turing kept functioning on a combination of nutrient bath and Jeff Stryker porn.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (2, Funny)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362021)

They are using OpenMPI with a custom transport over Gig10e hardware. For their switching they have basically gone to a stacked of switching fabrics. It is pretty much a 3D fabric they call a bolt.
Of course I am making all of this up but dang it sounds good :)

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362087)

I think they used Force10 10Gb/E, not build their own. That is what the Force10 guys were saying anyway.

You mean Juniper should be worried (4, Insightful)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362467)

Just like with the 10G switches, this has all the earmarks of something for purely internal use rather than something they're planning to sell. That means their current vendor, which is Juniper according to TFA, loses Google as a customer, but that's about it.

If anything, Cisco should be happy that their competitor is losing business.

Re:You mean Juniper should be worried (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362517)

Cisco should be happy that they came in third and not second?

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (2, Funny)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362509)

I for one welcome my new free, yet perpetually in beta router.

All you have to do is let them monitor all of the traffic that goes through them so they can data mine it for useful but anonymous markeing information.

Re:In My Opinion, Cisco Should Be Worried (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362595)

Sorry to disappoint, but Google's network is built on Juniper routers and was designed by Juniper Engineers...

Actually (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361267)

I bet these guys [wikipedia.org] are pretty are pretty nervous too.

revenue stream (1, Flamebait)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361273)

Well, besides the obvious "buy the box" revenue, how else can Google make money on it? [tinfoil] Always consider every router as a man-in-the-middle. Suddenly, every http: you visit will "help target your ads." One National Security Letter later, and every mailto: and http: and irc: and torrent: that you visit will "enable investigations into conspiracy models."[/tinfoil]

Re:revenue stream (0, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361461)

google reserves 25% of the bandwidth for their own use.

Re:revenue stream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361577)

will "enable investigations into conspiracy models."

Not so terribly far fetched, actually. They already claim to predict flu outbreaks better than the CDC based merely on search. My brain hurts to think about what they could predict with router traffic.

Predicted (0)

dsginter (104154) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361275)

Predicted here [slashdot.org] .

Or, maybe I was the one to put the bug in their ear?

If they do (5, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361297)

I hope they include sensible and up-to-date standards and protocols. I'm thinking about the possibilities of the interface of the tomato firmware and importantly, inclusion of ipv6 support. If we want this to happen in this generation we need to get software support on at least basic networking devices(thinking of routers and OSes).

Re:If they do (3, Interesting)

Kickboy12 (913888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361853)

I really hope they throw in IPv6. There are no consumer-level routers available with IPv6 support; it's been driving me crazy. Everyone will probably be forced to buy new routers in a few years anyway.

With that said, I think Google is probably developing a router for their own in-house use. I have doubts this will actually hit the consumer market.

Re:If they do (5, Informative)

voidptr (609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361897)

The Apple Airport Express and Airport Extreme routers support IPv6, although there's a bug in the latest firmware for doing configured tunnels.

Re:If they do (2, Informative)

chaim79 (898507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362043)

It's interesting that Apple OSX has supported IPv6 for a while (probably a side-effect from using BSD) and Apple routers (Airport Extreme) supports IPv6 and (if I remember the specs right) tunneling IPv6 over IPv4 out of the box and enabled.

While that does not represent the vast majority of the computers/home routers in use, this does show that some companies are trying to start the trend.

Re:If they do (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362599)

Vista also supports 6to4 out of the box. Unlike OS X, however, a Vista machine advertises itself as a 6to4 gateway on the anycast address, meaning that plugging a Vista machine in behind a NAT will break every other IPv6-enabled machine (including other Vista machines).

If Apple created another router (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361307)

It would get AIDS and die

It will run under Ninnle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361317)

Since Google has recently expressed an interest in embedded Ninnle Linux, there's now speculation that this new router of theirs will use this as the operating system.

Google was just trying to save money (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361377)

It seems likely to me that since Google is full of really smart people who seem to have a touch of the NIH syndrome, it probably isn't surprising that they wanted to develop their own routers from scratch instead of paying through the nose for Cisco or Juniper devices, especially since they needed hundreds or thousands of them and really don't want to have to pay for support contracts. I'd see a Google router announcement as just a productization of something they already use internally, just like Protocol Buffers.

The problem is that Google develops tech internally that is extremely good at solving their problems, but they don't always apply well outside of Google. Protocol Buffers aren't exactly obsoleting XML and from all indications they probably never will. The Google router will probably be super fast and simple, but lack a whole bunch of the more obscure features. The problem is that there's someone out there for each one of those obscure features, and if you don't support it your product won't even make it in the door. This is a problem Juniper runs into a lot, they have good and fast hardware, but the only thing it does is route.

In fact the article points out that Google's router is most likely to compete directly with Juniper instead of Cisco.

Re:Google was just trying to save money (2, Insightful)

gladish (982899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361797)

I can see it now. In ten years from now the talk will be, remember that company that thought it could beat everyone at everything and wound up going out of business because they were spread so thing trying to solve every problem ever conceived.

Re:Google was just trying to save money (5, Interesting)

mshannon78660 (1030880) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361957)

The problem is that there's someone out there for each one of those obscure features, and if you don't support it your product won't even make it in the door.

Too right on this point. I used to work for Cisco, and was always amazed at the number of bugs filed by customers around really obscure and esoteric features. Every one of those obscure features is in IOS because somebody (usually somebody big with deep pockets) is still using it... Even simple things like OSPF timers - they all have to be adjustable, because some big shop has decided that they can squeeze an extra .1% of bandwidth out of their pipes by fiddling with those timers - and if your new box requires them to reconfigure their whole network to standards (or worse yet, to the values that worked best in Google's network) they're not going to be very interested...

Re:Google was just trying to save money (2, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361969)

> ...it probably isn't surprising that they wanted to develop their own routers from
> scratch instead of paying through the nose for Cisco or Juniper devices, especially
> since they needed hundreds or thousands of them and really don't want to have to pay
> for support contracts.

When you buy thousands of routers you get them customized to your exact needs and you get whatever support arrangement you desire including complete drawings and source code.

Re:Google was just trying to save money (3, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362603)

When you buy thousands of routers you get them customized to your exact needs and you get whatever support arrangement you desire including complete drawings and source code.

Evidence? I've never heard of Cisco/Juniper/etc. offering this.

If they're smart... (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361447)

They'll be 100% on the up and up WRT implementing standards compliance, and will release every last detail as open source, no-strings-attached goodness for the world to use. Such an act would be a giant cudgel that they could use against arguments that they're embracing proprietary tactics. They should do for routers what Android is trying to do for phones.

Re:If they're smart... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361587)

What has Android done for phones?
What is Android trying to do?

Android (3, Insightful)

duguk (589689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361869)

1. it's open source
2. it's open source
3. it's open source

and probably some other reasons too [iphone-ipod.org] .

Re:Android (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362611)

How does open source do anything for phones?
(Hint: It doesn't! 99.9% of people buying phones don't give a shit about open source, and never will.)

Re:If they're smart...they'll use Ninnle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361735)

Ninnle Linux or NinnleBSD will give them the flexibility to do just that.

I can see it now... (5, Funny)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361601)

I can see it now...

Z:\>ping 192.168.1.20

Pinging 192.168.1.200 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 10.2.1.254: Destination host unreachable. Did you mean 192.168.1.2?
^C

Re:I can see it now... (5, Funny)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361713)

I'd be rather surprised if "ping 192.168.1.20" resulted in trying to ping 192.168.1.200. Might want to check your network settings or something.

Re:I can see it now... (1)

anonycow (1219802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362055)

rotfl! hilarious!

IPv6? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361611)

Hopefully they will get IPv6 in as a standard feature. I get annoyed at being told I need to start getting ready for IPv6, only to find out that the Apple Airport is more or less the only one offering this feature out of the box.

Inside tip: The router will be free for home users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361653)

But everything will be routed through Google first.

Re:Inside tip: The router will be free for home us (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361777)

My thought exactly. They'll either:

a) inject advertising
b) harvest every URL you browse, every DNS you resolve, every IP address you connect to
c) all of the above

Re:Inside tip: The router will be free for home us (1)

BBandCMKRNL (1061768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361987)

The answer is obviously 'c' and that's exactly why I would never allow such a device onto my network.

Re:Inside tip: The router will be free for home us (0, Offtopic)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362053)

And I JUST beat Deus Ex again.

If Mr. Page announces the implementation of an Aquinas protocol I may just have to start up the NSF.

doing it right (2, Interesting)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361667)

Presumably the people that would buy stuff just because it was made by Google are not a major demographic. So Google will need to do something to

1) raise the barrier to entry, no point issuing a device that anyone could make with Linux and a '386. Also, many cisco routers (eg. the 1800 series) genuinely represent value for money.

2) Provide good quality support.

So to raise the barrier to entry, it has to be a pretty special product, maybe doing the most useful 80% of what a cisco does flawlessly and improving upon cisco in come other areas (ones I can think off of the top of my head are ease of deployment and virtualization (vrf)).

The other reason people insist on Cisco, even when there are other cheaper options, is that they believe Cisco support their product well with training and technical support. This in my experience is an illusion. By and large the Cisco TAC is awful and maintaining certification is expensive and time consuming and the training materials are riddled with misprints, bugs and corporate "best practices" that are self-serving to Cisco.

So Google have a huge hill to climb, but I'm sure that it can be done in the space of a couple of years.

Re:doing it right (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361789)

I don't think it's that huge of a hill for Google. Remember the iPod? Came from nowhere. Google has a pretty good brand name. If their product slips out and performs well, there is no reason to believe that it won't be accepted as fast and widely as other Google products.

Re:doing it right (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362355)

Yes, but Apple had an incentive and a business model that consumers could live with. I'm not sure that you can say the same thing for a Google router. There's no particular business model other than spying on the owner and I doubt that many people would go along with that without something in it for them.

TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (5, Informative)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361683)

TFA says that Juniper is doomed because Google is getting ready to switch to their own in-house brand of routers. I find this difficult to believe for several reasons. One is that even if Google is Juniper's biggest customer, one customer does not a demise make -- Juniper has many other customers, including the entire UUnet (MCI, WorldCom, Verizon Business, whatever they're calling themselves this year) backbone. But there are far more practical reasons. Routers contain a lot of specialized hardware designed for rapid switching of packets. Google may have a lot of smart people working for them, but they certainly don't have the resources on board to design and build all of those ASIC's and other custom hardware, and it doesn't really make sense for them to get into that business during a recession just for an in-house project. (And no, don't give me that line about how a fast enough server with multiple Ethernet cards can substitute for even a mid-grade Cisco or Juniper. I manage a data center network and know the numbers. It can't even come close, no matter how good the software is, because a general purpose computer has to forward every packet using software, while a real router only makes a routing decision once and then all the rest of the packets for that destination are switched in hardware at wire speed.)

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361859)

Of course Google would not waste time developing their own ASICs. Companies like Marvell, Broadcom, and Dune offer plenty to choose from, and companies such as FDRY and JNPR already use these to build their own offerings.

It only makes sense for Google to use the building blocks to make a device that meets their specific needs.

Mod AC Informative (2, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362071)

Post is exactly right. The ASICs are already out there and in use by pretty much everyone for their COTS routers.

When one gets into the carrier-scale equipment I don't have a clue how that stuff goes. But I've seen enough low-end ( $10,000) routers taken apart to know that AC's comments are accurate.

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362677)

And if they did design their own, they could probably go to one of these companies and say 'we need 10,000 of these. If you fab them for us, you can keep the design and do whatever you want with it. Interested?'

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361867)

you do know that design companies exist which do ASIC design on contract and give you GDS II files, right ?

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362019)

These are the same reasons I giggle at know nothing unix goofballs claiming they are going to bring down cisco with their favorite distro, a clone pc, and two nics.

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362069)

Or Google could buy Juniper. Let the rumor drive down the stock and pick them up at fire sale prices.

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362149)

"...even if Google is Juniper's biggest customer, one customer does not a demise make..."

That really depends. For smart companies, they've sufficiently diversified their client base such that the loss of one will hurt but not cripple. Some clients, however, just become so damn big and a company simply can't get enough other clients or the increase the volume from the other existing clients high enough to balance against that one mega-client. Once one client represents a massive percentage of your revenue and the loss of that client would force you into immediate emergency restructuring in the hopes of survival, then yes, one client a demise can potentially make.

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (2, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362367)

Routers contain a lot of specialized hardware designed for rapid switching of packets. Google may have a lot of smart people working for them, but they certainly don't have the resources on board to design and build all of those ASIC's and other custom hardware, and it doesn't really make sense for them to get into that business during a recession just for an in-house project.

The questions really are: how many different types of ASICs and boards are in those routers plus how many of the ASICs cannot be replaced with FPGAs and how many of the different board types cannot be rationalized to a smaller number of types? Remember that Google probably doesn't need the level of flexibility offered across Juniper's product range. It is clear that Google already has expertise in chip design -- it's not hard to find board design expertise (either in-house or outsourced).

Re:TFA says Juniper is doomed. Not so fast. (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362607)

It is clear that Google already has expertise in chip design

What expertise have they demonstrated? Android doesn't mean much. That means they could design a router? Now creating a router that only supports a couple of protocols that they specifically need as opposed to the general purpose routers that require IOS/JUNOS and all the features they support.

However if Cisco can go out and make servers, than I'm sure google could hire enough people to build a router.

No Thanks. (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361711)

My router works fine, and I don't have Google stealing all of my LAN packets and serving me ads.

A fucking grouter had better make me warm delicious waffles if they want me to buy it. Even then, I'd only use it to make waffles.

And now I'm off to amazon to look for a waffle maker.

Alliteration much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361825)

Really? I read on Reuters about Google Router Rumors. Realistically, the race to rise in the realm of routers is a reasonable request from Page and Brin.

I'll recuse myself, I realize I am rambling.

Cisco vs. Google (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361965)

Cisco offers simple push-button technology for routers, but they also offer the best customer service in the business.

Google's customer service record is not as good as Cisco's, and that is a condition that will not improve.

Re:Cisco vs. Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362387)

Cisco offers simple push-button technology for routers, but they also offer the best customer service in the business.

Google's customer service record is not as good as Cisco's, and that is a condition that will not improve.

Ah, no... Push button is not in the Cisco vernacular. They used to provide world class service but that has deteriorated over the last 5 years. They often break things from version to version, and often because of their own inbred complexity.

Re:Cisco vs. Google (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362711)

Push button BGP configs? So that's why I'm looking for work!

No comment, eh.... (1)

CambodiaSam (1153015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361967)

That's a great marketing perk if nothing else. Why deny the claim when you can easily say "No Comment" and leave the world speculating. Positive spin like that is golden.

How fucking UGLY would that be? (2, Funny)

SrWebDeveloper (1419361) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361995)

I have this mental image of a case with wide blue, red, yellow, blue, green then red stripes as well as similarly colored network cables, ethernet jacks, lights and buttons....

BARF!!!

Oh, I'm sure it'll work great - but hide that bitch in the rear of your rack space, that's for sure.

Future Certifications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362037)

Oh I can see it now! Get you GCNA, GCNP, and finally your GCIE!!! Allow me to laugh at the thought that Cisco should be worried. Har Har Har. Google network certs, here they come :)

Not in "hardware business," won't sell routers (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362063)

Everybody seems to be assuming that these new routers will be for sale. That's obviously not going to happen — there just isn't room in the marketplace for a new player, even if that player is Google. Breaking into a new hardware marketplace is hard. You have to develop sales channels, create a hardware support organization, set up an operations organization to manage production, etc. etc.

I know about these things because for the last couple of years my job has been to document some of Sun's hardware products. Before that I mostly documented software, and the shear complexity of designing, building, distributing, selling and supporting actual physical products still boggles my mind. At product team meetings I sometimes feel at sea, even though the technical concepts I have to deal with are actually much simpler than those I faced when I was on software product teams. The logistics are just mind boggling.

Google isn't set up to be "in the hardware business". They make their own servers because there are no manufacturers that are able to meet their specialized needs. Now they seem to have decided that their routers also require specialized in-house designs. They haven't tried to sell these servers to other companies, and they won't try to sell their routers. Even if they could hope to compete, it would mean building up the kind of technical bureaucracy that Google's top echelon has no interest in managing.

Hell, they don't really have a proper bureaucracy for the much simpler job of creating and distributing their software products. If they actually charged money for most of them, they'd be trouble.

And Android? How does Android count as being "in the hardware business"? Is Google selling a cell phone I haven't heard about?

Am I then only one who... (5, Insightful)

JustASlashDotGuy (905444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362083)

Am I the only one who read this and thought, "Hmmm, it must be time for Google to renew their support contracts with Juniper.".

"leak" a rumor about no longer needing Juniper, and watch juniper lower their support rates.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362139)

How does this in any way contribute to Google's business model? Does anyone really want a Beta router?

Re:What's the point? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362473)

Those are the wrong questions, Google doesn't have a business model. They've been getting better, but the R&D has been all over the map and much of it doesn't have a prospective positive cashflow until after release. I'm not saying that all research needs to have an obvious way of marketing it, but a business shouldn't be buying out other businesses that lack a business model.

As a business they've been surviving largely upon largesse and a DoJ that doesn't believe in regulation. At some point they'll have to form up a model or die. It's not really beyond the realm of possibility that a new administration taking regulation more seriously could run them into the ground by requiring that they compete with other corporations. That deal with doubleclick is not the sort of thing that responsible regulator typically allow.

Re:What's the point? (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362493)

it doesn't contribute to google's business model, the rumor speculates that this is a bit like big table, and the rest of google's internal stuff. Basically they can't buy routers to handle internal traffic that satisfy their needs, so they are building their own for use in their data centers (ala big table, where they built a db technology rather than use oracle, or some other existing tech)

Routers that set the evil bit? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362219)

Are these routers that set the evil bit on packets that travel through them? Every packet that goes through it gets a google tracking cookie and an ad? "This packet brought to you by..."

i would buy one.... (1)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362261)

...if it was free, or paid for itself. and google paid me for the info they gleaned from my network traffic. Ultimately its nothing but a data-mining tool for google, so it is only fair that they pay me for the bandwidth and my data...


i know, i'm just hilarious!

Ad supported? (0, Flamebait)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362667)

So does it put little text ads into your TCP connections?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?