On 22/08/12 06:19, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Sorry to disrupt the bad cabling thread, but I'd like to revisit a thread from 2 years ago. I have read over the NANOG presentations: http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Jasinska_RouteSer...
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Filip_BIRD_final_...
Much of the Quagga pain discussed openly in 2010 was related to its performance as a route-server (which in a large instance might need to converge many millions of best paths, in a multiple table setup). A route-server is more like a database which uses bgp as its interface, than it is a router. The problems that we felt as exchange operators at this time were different to the ones that people using these packages as a router felt.
Both Quagga and BIRD have developed since the comparison in 2010: http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga http://bird.network.cz/?o_news
I'm not clear what you care about from a performance point of view - forwarding ? acting as a route-server ? collector ? BIRD is a great, super-fast route-server daemon - much "better" than typical competitors Quagga and OpenBGPd at this job. In a forwarding capacity, I do not know and I would really think that Operating system performance and environment tuning will have more to do with forwarding performance than the daemon used. I am hoping that forwarding best-practice information for Quagga eventually comes out of this project : http://opensourcerouting.org/ Andy