Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:08:04 +0200 From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeVRRPd project status Message-ID: <20050413200826.GB6922@diehard.n-r-g.com> In-Reply-To: <20050413212349.P22243@electra.nolink.net> References: <425196F0.4020309@x-trader.de> <6731347a839d85db456b1c5a33bcf0b5@mac.com> <20050413171132.B96104@electra.nolink.net> <20050413181931.GA16696@diehard.n-r-g.com> <20050413212349.P22243@electra.nolink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:36:48PM +0200, Lars Erik Gullerud wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > >On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:14:52PM +0200, Lars Erik Gullerud wrote: > >> > >>...and can't safely be deployed in a lot of datacenter scenarios where > >>the providers gear is running VRRP, since the OpenBSD-folks didn't bother > >>to read up on how the process of obtaining a protocol number works, and > >>hence used the one assigned to VRRP after a half-baked attempt at getting > >>one themselves. Hence making CARP pretty much useless for ISPs, no matter > >>how good it may or may not be otherwise. > >> > > > >This is not true. First of all the "OpenBSD-folks" asked IANA for protocol > >numbers for CARP and pfsync but IANA denied it. The reason was that CARP > > Which is exactly what I said, they didn't bother to read how the process > works and accordingly made a half-baked attempt only. You don't just fire > off a mail to IANA and say "hi, can I get a protocol number", that's just > not how things work, except in OpenBSD-land, obviously. :) > OpenBSD did more than just write a mail "hi, can I get a protocol number". > >was not developped through an official standards organization. > > Which is balony, you do however need to take the PROCESS through > the correct "organization" (i.e. the IETF and friends, although the > protocol itself can be developed through my grandma's knitting club). So, > I stand by my initial statement (but hey, I'm a network engineer at an > ISP, not a BSD developer - yes, us people the OpenBSD guys don't like > much because we like to point out the glaring problems in things like > CARP and OpenBGPd). However, this is all very much beside the point, so > further IETF/IANA-bashing or OpenBSD-bashing can be taken somewhere more > appropriate than this list. (Feel free to flame me privately) > The problem is that the correct "organization" is a exclusive club where opensource mostly doesn't matter. It is hard to get into the club as a non-profit project that mostly gets developped in spare time. Also I would be intrested what the glaring problems of OpenBGPd are. An important part of developement is feedback. > My point is that this very unwise decision to reuse the VRRP protocol > number, makes CARP mostly undeployable for ISP datacenter environments, > and hence there is an obvious need for a working VRRP implementation, it > doesn't help that CARP is now available in FreeBSD, because it is not a > viable alternative in a lot of scenarios. > As it seems you know how the IETF and IANA process works to, you could go and get a protocol number for carp and solve the problem. But as usual it is far easier to come up with some semi-true statements, fallacies and straw mens than to acctually start fixing stuff. Now I should shut up and start hacking. -- :wq Claudio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050413200826.GB6922>