Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:39:38 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My planned work on networking stack Message-ID: <p0600201fbc6a590fdb96@[10.0.1.3]> In-Reply-To: <4044A36A.64E885BE@freebsd.org> References: <4043B6BA.B847F081@freebsd.org> <200403011507.52238.wes@softweyr.com> <20040302031625.GA4061@scylla.towardex.com> <20040302042957.GH3841@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20040302082625.GE22985@cell.sick.ru> <p0600200ebc6a27773c31@[10.0.1.3]> <20040302125935.GA25835@cell.sick.ru> <p06002014bc6a36fcdf29@[10.0.1.3]> <4044A36A.64E885BE@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:08 PM +0100 2004/03/02, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Gleb is doing the same, and so am I. However you are not. Do you
> run BGP in your network?
I'm not running an ISP that is multiply connected to at least two
metro-area NAPs and has multiple upstreams at both sites, no. I
would be very interested to be involved in the network management of
a medium to large-sized ISP, however.
> At least for me on FreeBSD Zebra has been very stable for me. There
> is no need to always "change" things.
That's wonderful for you. However, that doesn't change the
criticism that Henning has levelled at zebra/quagga.
> What is you point? Do you use Zebra? Are you affected by it? Or
> are you just ranting?
My point is that zebra/quagga have significant limitations that
restrict their usefulness, due to the design of the system.
Moreover, the development on zebra has effectively stalled since the
author got hired away to do that kind of work professionally, and
development on quagga has apparently been sporadic and relatively
limited, presumably due to the fact that they don't have replacement
developers of the same caliber.
If we want to get to the point where we can have a reasonable
expectation of throwing away all cisco, juniper, Foundry, and other
routing hardware and replace them with something that is easier to
install, configure, monitor, and manage, then I think we need to be
looking beyond zebra/quagga.
> And you should stop flaming anyone if you haven't ever used or done
> what you are blabbering about.
If you think this is flaming, then you have never seen flaming.
At this stage, this is nothing more than a luke-warm disagreement.
> Sorry, but OpenBSDs bgpd wont to any of that either. This is mostly
> hardware that needs to be redundant. Not much you can in bgpd.
Not in bgpd per se, no. But by then you'd have added more
protocol support to the daemon and that name would no longer be
appropriate.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0600201fbc6a590fdb96>