From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 2 07:45:59 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487A816A4CE; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 07:45:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E747243D1D; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 07:45:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i22Fjmxe007433; Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:45:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@127.0.0.1 Message-Id: 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> <20040302125935.GA25835@cell.sick.ru> <4044A36A.64E885BE@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:39:38 +0100 To: Andre Oppermann From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: Brad Knowles cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My planned work on networking stack X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:45:59 -0000 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, "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(+++)