Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:33:00 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: "current@FreeBSD.org" <current@freebsd.org>, net <net@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal Message-ID: <33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <202006221926.05MJQJwC011867@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> 22.06.2020 19:49, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>> Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty much works? >> Have you actually tried running routed(8) as base for real network with loops, >> mix of p2p and ethernet-like interfaces, IPv4 aliases, need of offset-lists and >> with diameter about 6 hops? > > As I said I know of people that are running and it is working, and > Hiroko's post clearly establishes that as fact in evidence. > > I am not even sure that RIP* has loop detection in the protocol, It has, of course. > as the prefered routing protocol for anything multipath (which > is what loops are in effect) is OSPF. RIPv2 may be used for failover, not for multipath. Any redundant route creates L3 "multipath". >> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. >> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. > > And your PR# for reporting the bug is? Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33c892bf-5d71-cd65-3041-449cc1bf6e6b>