Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 20:18:54 +0200 From: Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Message-ID: <1613e4c8-c102-45a8-9f8e-3b5e7fd09e25@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> In-Reply-To: <CAHu1Y712dPK6nnwfKwV_UtbyuQ9GUpP=OBQ%2B-s_39psZobvWrg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFYkXjmMFuL0rtpYUO=-TTEOxiu795sxtATg6RGdHjMhHeoYew@mail.gmail.com> <MN0PR84MB3024D8CAF5915733D5F7B537C0EC2@MN0PR84MB3024.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAHu1Y712dPK6nnwfKwV_UtbyuQ9GUpP=OBQ%2B-s_39psZobvWrg@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Today Michael Sierchio wrote:
> There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base"
> system should be packages, and managed that way. That would
> facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for
> various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of
> the base system. Too much is included by default in Base.
>
FreeBSD is a comprehensive OS, and most users still do appreciate this
feature.
I remember that we had also RCS tools in the base system, they got
purged (moved to the ports tree really), most users are fine with it,
but for managing single config files RCS is still the best-suited
versioning system. We still have ftpd(8), but it was almost removed,
there was a strong battle on the mailing list to preserve it. FTP
protocol is as old as BSD, but it's still valid and, so far not
deprecated. A similar story was with smbfs(5). The same probably applies
to RIP/RIPng.
What if we would better remove LLVM from the base if the system is
bloated ? LLVM needs frequent updates and keeping it in base is far more
risky in terms of system security than keeping RIP daemons. Why do we
still have odd tools like biff(1) in the base ?
On the other hand, for a significant share of the user base, the more
tiny the OS is, the better. The transition to PkgBase should fulfill
user needs, especially those, who want a minimalist OS. So please, go
ahead and switch to PgkBase if your FreeBSD system contains undesired
software.
Cheers
Marek
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie <john@thehowies.com> wrote:
>
> I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the
> justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to
> compile, distribute, and install it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott
> <uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.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. if
> >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD
> >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a
> port such
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> 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
> shortcomings.
> >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic"
> feature sets of
> >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't
> object to its
> >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint
> alternative. I've used
> >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements.
> >>
> >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you
> are unconvinced
> >> 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 regularly
> >> justify their presence in the OS.
> >>
> >> 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 the
> >> first place?
> >
> > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove
> perfectly
> > working code??
> >
> > There are more and more ideas in recent times like this.
> >
> > Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility
> > removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks
> > more like diversion and sabotage than progress.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Today Michael Sierchio wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHu1Y712dPK6nnwfKwV_UtbyuQ9GUpP=OBQ+-s_39psZobvWrg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">There is an argument to be made that all such
components of the "base" system should be packages, and managed
that way. That would facilitate removal or addition of things
like MTAs, Route daemons for various protocols, etc. and permit
them to be updated independent of the base system. Too much is
included by default in Base.
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>FreeBSD is a comprehensive OS, and most users still do appreciate
this feature.<br>
</p>
I remember that we had also RCS tools in the base system, they got
purged (moved to the ports tree really), most users are fine with
it, but for managing single config files RCS is still the
best-suited versioning system. We still have ftpd(8), but it was
almost removed, there was a strong battle on the mailing list to
preserve it. FTP protocol is as old as BSD, but it's still valid
and, so far not deprecated. A similar story was with smbfs(5). The
same probably applies to RIP/RIPng. <br>
What if we would better remove LLVM from the base if the system is
bloated ? LLVM needs frequent updates and keeping it in base is far
more risky in terms of system security than keeping RIP daemons. Why
do we still have odd tools like biff(1) in the base ?<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, for a significant share of the user base, the
more tiny the OS is, the better. The transition to PkgBase should
fulfill user needs, especially those, who want a minimalist OS. So
please, go ahead and switch to PgkBase if your FreeBSD system
contains undesired software.</p>
<p>Cheers<br>
</p>
<p>Marek<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHu1Y712dPK6nnwfKwV_UtbyuQ9GUpP=OBQ+-s_39psZobvWrg@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 15, 2024 at
1:01 PM John Howie <<a href="mailto:john@thehowies.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">john@thehowies.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I
use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the
justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we
have to compile, distribute, and install it.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO <<a
href="mailto:tomek@cedro.info" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">tomek@cedro.info</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott <<a
href="mailto:uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi
Winter wrote:<br>
>>> (..)<br>
>>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of
these daemons from src. if<br>
>>> there's some concern that people still want to
use the BSD<br>
>>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also
willing to submit a port such<br>
>>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in
a similar way to how<br>
>>> the removal of things like window(1) and
telnetd(8) were handled.<br>
>> <br>
>> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and
CPU requirements. It<br>
>> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy"
despite its shortcomings.<br>
>> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce
"basic" feature sets of<br>
>> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.<br>
>> <br>
>> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and
wouldn't object to its<br>
>> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint
alternative. I've used<br>
>> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as
replacements.<br>
>> <br>
>> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to
say you are unconvinced<br>
>> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely
see the value. I<br>
>> understand that there is always a cost to providing
code, but that wasn't<br>
>> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities,
etc. need to regularly<br>
>> justify their presence in the OS.<br>
>> <br>
>> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the
FreeBSD routed and<br>
>> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose
of removing it in the<br>
>> first place?<br>
> <br>
> Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to
remove perfectly<br>
> working code??<br>
> <br>
> There are more and more ideas in recent times like this.<br>
> <br>
> Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward
compatibility<br>
> removal. While basic functions become unstable and
unreliable. Looks<br>
> more like diversion and sabotage than progress.<br>
> <br>
> If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a
really good reason<br>
> it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null.<br>
> </blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1613e4c8-c102-45a8-9f8e-3b5e7fd09e25>