Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 12:17:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> To: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@ice.cold.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why routed and not gated by default? Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95.970602121255.35060B-100000@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970602100912.7687A-100000@ice.cold.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Because gated isn't really necessary unless you know what you're doing :). Routed may be more than sufficient for the common user, if you really need gated you can add the package, no problem. Routed code is also more stable than gated, there is no advantage in maintaining gated in src/contrib. I don't think the problem is copyright. Last time I saw, SCO included routed by default; AIX includes gated by default. Pedro. On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > Just curious, why do we still have the antiquated routed as our default > router daemon? It only does RIP doesn't it? My general and limited > experience (I've only setup two ISPs) has been that most people disabled > RIP by default in their routers (if its enabled at all)--which causes no > end of headaches. Why don't we just let RIP die and use something more > modern and better, such as gated, which can still do RIP if you want it, > but also handles the more modern protocols. > > Basically, RIP is ok for local networks, but isn't FreeBSD supposed to be > sortof a server/higher-end system? This being the case, shouldn't we at > least support the more commonly used protocols by routers? Its been too > long since I setup the last network, so I've forgotten the acronym, but > the more common protocol seemed to be OSPF? > > *shrug* > > Perhaps we don't use gated by default due to copyright problems? > > -Brandon > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.A41.3.95.970602121255.35060B-100000>