The implication being that while it might work, it would make administration of the system onerous and unpredictable, considering we are dealing with a ton of FreeBSD installations, and not just a single server.

Adjusting a single tunable is 'onerous'? Ok.  

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:00 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:


On 5/9/23 14:32, Tom Beecher wrote:


Except you didn't exactly "call out limitations". You simply said : 

IS-IS in Quagga and FRR are not yet ready for business, is what I would
caution.

The reality is that's not true.

And just a few weeks prior, I had given an update about this very issue, as per attached.

I figured if anyone needed more details (as I'd provided weeks prior), they'd reach out, like Bryan did.



- You have a specific environment ( FRR on FreeBSD ) that has an issue with IS-IS.
- You identified the issue in Apr 2020 as related to the size of the PSNPs being larger than the default BPF packet buffer size : https://seclists.org/nanog/2020/Apr/238
- Although a solution was provided ( https://seclists.org/nanog/2020/Apr/240 ) , you made an affirmative choice you didn't want to. ( https://seclists.org/nanog/2020/Apr/241 ) 

You didn't say "I don't want to adjust net.bpf.bufsize because it would have negative impacts in my environment, so I need an option in FRR to adjust the PSNP size." You said "I don't want to."

Ummh, not sure if you need help reading, but my exact words were:

    "Probably could - but I'd prefer solutions that don't mess with the base
    system, which ensures long term usability of FRR across future upgrades."

The implication being that while it might work, it would make administration of the system onerous and unpredictable, considering we are dealing with a ton of FreeBSD installations, and not just a single server.

You, somehow, read my response is me being petulant; which is entirely your right, of course. But I also won't let you make a false inference of what my response actually was.


You are of course perfectly free to not make that change, and perfectly free to gripe that FRR development has not done what you asked. But it's pretty disingenuous to say that the software isn't "ready" strictly because of issues in your use case. That doesn't really help anyone. 

I made a statement, I was asked to explain, I did. There was historical context, even though I can't expect you to file all member's postings to memory.

But if you want to let yourself get into your feelings, I can't help you there.

Mark.