Linux and Cisco -- convergence versus low-cost

More from the Cisco-router-as-Linux-app-server debate. Don Marti on Linuxworld agreed with a Cisco Subnet post that listed lots of reasons why a Cisco router is not the best box to turn into a Linux app server. Agreed is too soft a word. He called it the "dumbest networking vendor idea since Network Access Control." Alan Shimel at StillSecure took Marti to task.

Shimel writes:

"We live in an age of convergence! ... People want more functionality out of their hardware. Now that is not to say that your router should be your database server or mail server. But there are certainly network functions that make sense to put on a router. Security is a no brainer to start. IPS, VPN, firewall, gateway AV- easy. What about network functionality like DHCP, DNS, Radius, etc. How about some next gen network stuff like WAP and VOIP? That would make sense. By embracing Linux on the router all of these things and more are possible."

Marti is having none of it. He responds:

Nice one from the Overspend on IT For No Reason Department. Of course, you can run your DHCP and your routing on the same machine. And of course it makes sense for that machine to run Linux. The question is: is that machine a $2,000-4,000 generic box, or a >$10,000 Cisco router? Converge all you want. It makes sense. But if you're going to be down to one box, why not lose the expensive box instead of the cheap one?

The point of convergence is to save money, as well as to ease administration. At the point where it costs more money or requires more admin than the "old way" of doing things, network pros will have a hard time swallowing it.