fy=NOT); Thu, 16 May 2024 00:20:21 +1000 (AEST) (envelope-from uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com) Received: from utility-01.thismonkey.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by utility-01.thismonkey.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 44FEKLvo063813; Thu, 16 May 2024 00:20:21 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com) Received: (from root@localhost) by utility-01.thismonkey.com (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 44FEKKgx063805; Thu, 16 May 2024 00:20:20 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com) Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 00:20:20 +1000 From: Scott To: Lexi Winter Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Message-ID: References: List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[thismonkey.com,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[thismonkey.com:s=mail-01]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:10143, ipnet:2406:3400:340::/42, country:AU]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[net@freebsd.org]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[thismonkey.com:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Vfb3m52cqz47hG On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: > [note: this is a copy of a mail i sent this to arch@, but someone > suggested also asking net@ about this.] > > hello, > > currently FreeBSD ships routed(8) and route6d(8) which implement the RIP > resp. RIPng routing protocols. > > many years ago, it was fairly common for hosts to run these protocols to > get their routing table and it made sense to ship an implementation with > the operating systems. > > nowadays, these are fairly niche protocols and have been replaced in > most networks by either static routing tables (mostly just a default > route) or more modern routing protocols like IBGP/EBGP, OSPF or IS-IS. > as such, i'm not convinced there's any value continuing to ship these > with the OS. > > for people who do want to continue running RIP/RIPng, there are several > implementations available in ports, such as net/bird2 and net/quagga. > > 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. > > does anyone have an opinion on this? Hi, 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? Scott