Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:03:44 +1200 From: Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jabley@clear.co.nz Subject: Re: Our routed - Vern says it's old and buggy. Message-ID: <19990429110344.A81921@clear.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904281432380.378-100000@picnic.mat.net>; from Chuck Robey on Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:34:51PM -0400 References: <199904281828.LAA07993@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904281432380.378-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:34:51PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > And you didn't know that the RIP spec is even older, and was publicly > available via an RFC (the same as OSPF?) But, of course, RIP sucks in many well-known ways. > I can't quite figure why they stuck the word "open" in there, because it > couldn't possibly be more open than RIP. I thought the "open" referred to the algorithm -- i.e. "shortest open path first" would be a synonym. I have no reason to think this, though. I could well be wrong, and probably am. > > OSPF has been around for a long time. > > But RIP is older, and was the first routing scheme. X.25 is older than IP, which clearly makes it better in all circumstances. Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990429110344.A81921>