From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Jun 24 17:48:41 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2D9354FED; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49sVxd69Jfz4dFn; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05OHmM8f047240 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:25 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: melifaro@freebsd.org Received: from [10.58.0.10] (dadv@dadvw [10.58.0.10]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05OHmIuO055258 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jun 2020 00:48:18 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" , "Rodney W. Grimes" References: <273191592779927@mail.yandex.ru> <202006221249.05MCnrKw010397@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <102621592983711@mail.yandex.ru> Cc: net , freebsd-hackers From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 00:48:15 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <102621592983711@mail.yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49sVxd69Jfz4dFn X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.38 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.51)[-0.515]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.73)[-0.730]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[empty SPF record]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.04)[-0.039]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:48:41 -0000 24.06.2020 15:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Different people have different opinions :-) > Let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make: RIP original design was created a long time ago. The current landscape is different: there are multiple protocols that are superset of RIP. There are multiple implementations of these protocols that are easily available. The configuration is not non-zero, but simple. > Even further, more and more want their protocol daemon to have an api - and that makes implementations like goBGP extremely popular, moving people from "traditional" routing suites/daemons. > With all that in mind, I see RIP popularity and usage going in only one direction. Btw, I do use RIPv2 in production these days (but with ripd, not routed) and I have several reasons to do so. First, RIPv2 is distance-vector protocol and has some advantages over OSPF for small-diameter but geographically distributed network (dictinct cities inter-connected with tunnels) as it does not require existence of "inseparable" backbone. RIPv2 offers richer ways to route filtering and/or preferring that you can achieve with OSPF only if you create distinct area for each router :-) Next, with years I came to decision running both OSPF and RIPv2 in parallel without route redistribution. This doubles my work initially at configuration stage but provides me with some protection against software failures. I can easily stop, debug and restart one of routing daemons while another one still runs so network has connectivity.