Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>