Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR84MB3929
X-Spamd-Bar: ----
X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action;
	module=replies;
	Message is reply to one we originated
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00];
	REPLY(-4.00)[];
	ASN(0.00)[asn:8075, ipnet:2a01:111:f000::/36, country:US]
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Vffdb0pW8z4c88

I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the justificat=
ion? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, distribut=
e, and install it.

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20=E2=80=AFPM Scott <uatka3z4zagp@this=
monkey.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
>>> (..)
>>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src.  i=
f
>>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD
>>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port suc=
h
>>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how
>>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled.
>>=20
>> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements.  =
It
>> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomi=
ngs.
>> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets=
 of
>> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.
>>=20
>> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to i=
ts
>> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative.  I've =
used
>> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements.
>>=20
>> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvi=
nced
>> of the value of shipping it.  As a user I definitely see the value.  I
>> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn'=
t
>> suggested as a reason.  All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regul=
arly
>> justify their presence in the OS.
>>=20
>> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and
>> route6d to a port?  Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in t=
he
>> first place?
>=20
> Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly
> working code??
>=20
> There are more and more ideas in recent times like this.
>=20
> Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility
> removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks
> more like diversion and sabotage than progress.
>=20
> If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason
> it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null.
>=20