Subject: Re: Interest in Broadcom crypto cards?
To: Michael Richardson <>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <>
List: current-users
Date: 02/20/2007 16:26:37
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>"Thomas" == Thomas E Spanjaard <> writes:
>     Thomas> Todd Vierling wrote:
>     >> There are many such embedded/small-CPU devices (not just for VPN,
>     >> mind you) that need low power consumption, which is certainly not
>     >> an amd64-type-CPU strong suit.  A CPU of the power you mention is
>     >> a *very very bad* fit here; typically these machines are 486 or
>     >> Pentium-II generation at best.  It's like comparing pears
>     >> vs. tangerines, or something like that.
>     Thomas> I'm left wondering what use PCI64/66 is there then? Sure,
>     Thomas> there are SoCs with PCI64/66 buses (Intel/Marvell?), but I
>     Thomas> haven't seen any solution where they offer that as PCI slot,
>   well... uhm. I've seen many devel boxes that have PCI slots like that.
>   PPC440s, MIPS, etc.
>   Do you leave it as a PCI slot? No.  You buy the devices you need, and
> build a new board that has the things you need.
>   Go open a Cisco VPN3K box and see what is inside.

Sure, e.g. the RoadRunner boards, but if these chips are hard to get and 
'old', is there a compelling argument to still prototype for those 
chips, or does Broadcom offer reasonably compatible newer versions for 

         Thomas E. Spanjaard

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)