Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 10:01:20 -0700 From: John Howie <john@thehowies.com> To: Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> Cc: Scott <uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com>, net@freebsd.org, Lexi Winter <lexi@le-fay.org> Subject: Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Message-ID: <MN0PR84MB3024D8CAF5915733D5F7B537C0EC2@MN0PR84MB3024.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <CAFYkXjmMFuL0rtpYUO=-TTEOxiu795sxtATg6RGdHjMhHeoYew@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFYkXjmMFuL0rtpYUO=-TTEOxiu795sxtATg6RGdHjMhHeoYew@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MN0PR84MB3024D8CAF5915733D5F7B537C0EC2>