Expectations for Cisco: Implementing virtual Servers in routers

Today's Cisco is struggling to deliver on its promise to enable iOS (Internet operating system), and, at least until now, the corresponding development results are already running in its ISR (integrated multi-service router). These routers are able to run Third-party applications created using Cisco's SDK, which is the first step in Cisco's attempt to use virtualization technology to replace a network infrastructure server. Although iOS is not as open as the Windows system (Cisco already supports Linux and the system itself is open), it still allows users to implant third-party applications into the ISR, which weakens the flow of data from the user's data center, This reduces the workload and pressure of branch office routers. Although Cisco has been the most vocal vendor in its strategy of moving into the server sector, it is not the only vendor to load a platform on a router that can run a third-party application. It is better to give praise to this technology to 3com, as it has announced its OSN (open service Network) as an implantable platform for applications as early as 1 years ago, and Riverbed has also launched a simplified Wan (WAN)-optimized version of the product. From a macro-deployment perspective, Cisco's products are very similar to the 3com products: both involve routers in branch offices, but neither has a third-party application placed directly on the router. Instead, Cisco and 3com run a Third-party application on a stand-alone new module, which is actually a descending blade server. If Cisco and 3com use a separate modular approach to riverbed, compared with the software-only approach to third-party applications, it does increase user costs, but for the x86 platform, when these applications are competing with routers for the necessary processor, memory, and hard disk resources, The use of separate modules is more useful for separating applications from routing facilities from competing for resources. While 3com has been using a single OSN module, Cisco has two separate products with different expansion blades because of different ISR models, and it has an ISR for high-end 1841, 2800, and 3800, while the capacity range for memory is 256MB~2GB. Cisco's models do not refer to many server standards (or any other standard), but are similar to 3com 1GB modules. Of course, both Cisco and 3com's research and development goals are very much in need of services that are used by a small number of staff in the branch office to apply to these modules, rather than to virtualize the entire datacenter. Cisco's modules run on the so-called AXP (application extension platform), and a new version of iOS is based on the Linux platform. This design makes it relatively easy to implant applications in a module, but the existence of a Cisco-specific layer means that the operating system is not consistent with any Linux distribution scheme. At the very least, Linux applications need to be compiled again, and for those efficient access routesFeatures, users also need to reuse the API to write access programs. However, routers do not only host certain applications, but the security architecture requires marked code, and Cisco has been heavily guarded about the private passwords it identifies. Every application placed on the router, even those that the user developed to complete the internal application, must be allowed by Cisco before running. Cisco's explanation for this is that an application is apparently only allowed to get a password for the logo, but the idea that it needs to be fully licensed by Cisco will naturally lead some users to question the router's openness. An API is simply an implementation path that an application can run directly on a module, meaning that the system of module memory limits the amount of application that can be run on it. However, users or Third-party developers can send data to a Java or Windows server elsewhere by writing proxy visitors to the module. Like 3com, Cisco has already signed several partners to develop router applications, but the two companies have different strategies: Cisco already has its own products in many areas, such as security, VoIP and the use of 3com. Initially, Cisco has nine partners, including Avocent, and its landesk management software will be able to be run on routers. Other partners are unified communications or point to specific industries. For example, when the nice systems company is looking for financial services and government records, the Sagem-interstar company has one application that intercepts fax calls in VoIP lines, and Cisco's distributor ICW systems keeps medical records applied to ISR bindings, And said the implant after the application of the equipment as a health-care router. Obviously, such as Cisco and 3com attach importance to the Third-party application of the idea of embedding routers, to a large extent, to reduce the number of application servers in the hardware overhead, but also reduce the flow of the application generated by the downlink. Only with the changes in time, coupled with a variety of network optimization manufacturers, such as riverbed and other manufacturers, Cisco's outstanding advantages on the router can continue to extend to the application after the implantation of the market recognition? is Cisco's Open Internet strategy really open to users? How can users choose the optimal strategy to achieve higher income expenditure? The user seems to need to wait and see!