Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 15:56:33 +0100 From: Lexi Winter <lexi@le-fay.org> To: Scott <uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Message-ID: <ZkYeoenUUgtmKMS9@daphne.eden.le-fay.org> In-Reply-To: <ZkYbT9sgTmRxAqdj@thismonkey.com> References: <Zh2S1zV3nQz5VCS-@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> <ZkTEpJEwL/MzwUKW@thismonkey.com> <ZkYD_MKm6lWiwohI@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> <ZkYbT9sgTmRxAqdj@thismonkey.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott: > I'm never sure whether to respond to sophistry and rhetoric, but why not,= =20 > let's play: my intention with this post was not to engage in sophistry, but to explain (or justify) the reasoning behind my proposal to remove RIP/RIPng, since you seemed to be asking for more details on that. i apologise if it came across as unnecessarily rhetorical, but i often find the easiest way to explain my reasoning behind something is by example. perhaps this is a personal flaw :-) in any case it sounds like you're content with routed being moved to a port rather than banished entirely. my assumption in the original mail was that this would happen anyway (assuming it at least 1 remaining user) but perhaps i wasn't clear enough about that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ZkYeoenUUgtmKMS9>