Subject: Re: Interest in Broadcom crypto cards?
To: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thomas E. Spanjaard <email@example.com>
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
Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>>"Thomas" == Thomas E Spanjaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----