From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Apr 28  8:55: 9 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (parker-T1-2-gw.sf3d.best.net [209.157.165.30])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E869A15727
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jas@flyingfox.com)
Received: (from jas@localhost)
	by biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id JAA01524;
	Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com>
Message-Id: <199904281658.JAA01524@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com>
To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com
Subject: Re: Our routed - Vern says it's old and buggy.
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199904272341.QAA01360@apollo.backplane.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes:

> Given the choice between OSPF and RIP1/2, OSPF is far superior
> even on 'simple' networks.  It is effectively an open protocol,
> like BGP.

Matt, can you clarify what you mean by "open" here?  I know it's
what the "O" in OSPF stands for, but in what way are OSPF and
BGP more open than RIP?

Jim Shankland
NLynx Systems, Inc.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message