Bird vs Quagga revisited
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_... as well as the NANOG thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/123027 But have not found anything worthwhile on the matter over the past 2 years. Both Quagga and BIRD have developed since the comparison in 2010: http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga http://bird.network.cz/?o_news But has anyone performed a more recent comparsion? Does Quagga still suffer from performance issues vs BIRD? Has anyone performed an RFC conformance test to see who complies more strictly to all the various RFCs? If BIRD is so much better than Quagga why is there no instance at Oregon: http://www.routeviews.org/ I also notice that BSD Router Project supports both: http://bsdrp.net/bsdrp How well do the two coexist at the same time? Any migration issues going from Quagga to BIRD? Any feedback appreciated. We now take you back to cable wars :-) Thanks, Hank
Hello, I came across this site a few weeks ago http://code.google.com/p/google-quagga/source/list Seems that Google (or at least some Googlers) are working on quagga, or worked as the last update is tagged July 2011. Main difference I see between Quagga and Bird, is that it is now possible to run ISIS on Quagga, but I did not perform a full comparaison of this two daemon. Guillaume 2012/8/22 Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
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_RouteServer_N48.pdf<http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Jasinska_RouteServer_N48.pdf> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/**nanog48/presentations/Monday/** Filip_BIRD_final_N48.pdf<http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Filip_BIRD_final_N48.pdf> as well as the NANOG thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.**com/lists/nanog/users/123027<http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/123027> But have not found anything worthwhile on the matter over the past 2 years.
Both Quagga and BIRD have developed since the comparison in 2010: http://savannah.nongnu.org/**news/?group=quagga<http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga> http://bird.network.cz/?o_news
But has anyone performed a more recent comparsion? Does Quagga still suffer from performance issues vs BIRD? Has anyone performed an RFC conformance test to see who complies more strictly to all the various RFCs?
If BIRD is so much better than Quagga why is there no instance at Oregon: http://www.routeviews.org/
I also notice that BSD Router Project supports both: http://bsdrp.net/bsdrp How well do the two coexist at the same time? Any migration issues going from Quagga to BIRD? Any feedback appreciated.
We now take you back to cable wars :-)
Thanks, Hank
-- Cordialement, Guillaume BARROT
On 22/08/12 06:19, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
...Any feedback appreciated.
I can't speak too highly of BIRD. Our use case is probably not completely typical, but our multilateral peering route servers have been hugely improved by switching to BIRD. Our two primary route servers, one for each LINX London LAN, use BIRD; the two secondaries use an enhanced version of Quagga. The BIRD route server scales better, gives much higher performance, is much more robust, and is much easier to restart - especially when there are lots of connected sessions. The development team are fantastic: very active and responsive, and especially responsive to the needs of the IXP community. Switching hats to Euro-IX, BIRD is now the most used route server amongst IXPs, as can be seen from our latest annual report: https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1024-Euro-IX-IXP-Report-pdf?download=yes John -- John Souter, CEO, London Internet Exchange Ltd Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA. Registered 3137929 in England. Mobile: +44-7711-492389 https://www.linx.net/ "Working for the Internet" sip:john@linx.net
On 22.08.2012 11:22, John Souter wrote:
On 22/08/12 06:19, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
...Any feedback appreciated.
I can't speak too highly of BIRD. Our use case is probably not completely typical, but our multilateral peering route servers have been hugely improved by switching to BIRD. Our two primary route servers, one for each LINX London LAN, use BIRD; the two secondaries use an enhanced version of Quagga.
The BIRD route server scales better, gives much higher performance, is much more robust, and is much easier to restart - especially when there are lots of connected sessions. The development team are fantastic: very active and responsive, and especially responsive to the needs of the IXP community.
Switching hats to Euro-IX, BIRD is now the most used route server amongst IXPs, as can be seen from our latest annual report: https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1024-Euro-IX-IXP-Report-pdf?download=yes
+1 ... I guess we at DE-CIX perhaps run the largest routeserver setups with full as-path and prefix-list filtering. BIRD really was some magnitudes of perfomance improvement compared to Quagga. In the meantime some of us (LINX, INEX, DE-CIX) also supported development of Quagga as a routeserver. Biggest issue currently is to get this code into mainline Quagga to make it suitabke for further development and improvement. Personally I would like to see more work on all three opensource implementations, i.e. BIRD, OpenBGPd and Quagga. Arnold -- Arnold Nipper CTO/COO e-mail: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 152 5371 7690 Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net
Personally I would like to see more work on all three opensource implementations, i.e. BIRD, OpenBGPd and Quagga.
http://opensourcerouting.org/ to the rescue? -- Christian Esteve Rothenberg, Ph.D. Converged Networks Business Unit CPqD - Center for Research and Development in Telecommunications Tel. (+55 19) 3705 4479 / Cel. (+55 19) 8193-7087 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Arnold Nipper <arnold@nipper.de> wrote:
On 22.08.2012 11:22, John Souter wrote:
On 22/08/12 06:19, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
...Any feedback appreciated.
I can't speak too highly of BIRD. Our use case is probably not completely typical, but our multilateral peering route servers have been hugely improved by switching to BIRD. Our two primary route servers, one for each LINX London LAN, use BIRD; the two secondaries use an enhanced version of Quagga.
The BIRD route server scales better, gives much higher performance, is much more robust, and is much easier to restart - especially when there are lots of connected sessions. The development team are fantastic: very active and responsive, and especially responsive to the needs of the IXP community.
Switching hats to Euro-IX, BIRD is now the most used route server amongst IXPs, as can be seen from our latest annual report: https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1024-Euro-IX-IXP-Report-pdf?download=yes
+1 ... I guess we at DE-CIX perhaps run the largest routeserver setups with full as-path and prefix-list filtering. BIRD really was some magnitudes of perfomance improvement compared to Quagga.
In the meantime some of us (LINX, INEX, DE-CIX) also supported development of Quagga as a routeserver. Biggest issue currently is to get this code into mainline Quagga to make it suitabke for further development and improvement.
Personally I would like to see more work on all three opensource implementations, i.e. BIRD, OpenBGPd and Quagga.
Arnold -- Arnold Nipper CTO/COO e-mail: arnold.nipper@de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 152 5371 7690 Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net
-- Christian
Personally I would like to see more work on all three opensource implementations, i.e. BIRD, OpenBGPd and Quagga.
http://opensourcerouting.org/ to the rescue?
Hi, I'm David Lamparter, employed at the OpenSourceRouting (OSR) project to maintain Quagga. I can tell you that the OSR's interest is in providing a stable open-source routing platform for actual switches/routers (with either a software or hardware forwarding plane). Quagga and BIRD were considered equally; Quagga's single-RIB design and existence of isisd were what tipped the scales. We primarily perform conformance and scale testing and fix/enhance in those areas; also we support 3rd parties in cleaning and submitting Quagga patches/features. OSPF and IS-IS are stronger targets currently since they need more work than BGP, and also Euro-IX already did much of the latter. Merging that is on the TODO, but it's a lot of work. Even as a Quagga maintainer, I must currently recommend against using mainline Quagga as a route server. Please use Euro-IX Quagga, and if you can/want, convince your decisionmakers to support Chris Hall on that -- I've been told future work on the Euro-IX Quagga branch is not certain. There's been a BoF on RIPE64 with OSR, BIRD and Quagga involvement. There'll be one at RIPE65 again I think. Either way if you have questions, feel free to ask. -David
I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports MPLS. Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS support... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days? ~Seth
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their own MPLS stack. Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was incomplete and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however. Edward Dore Freethought Internet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Keen" <walter.keen@rainierconnect.net> To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports MPLS. Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS support... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days? ~Seth
MPLS and VPLS on RouterOS works very well. -- Eduardo Schoedler Em 29/08/2012, às 12:39, "Edward J. Dore" <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk> escreveu:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their own MPLS stack.
Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was incomplete and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore Freethought Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Keen" <walter.keen@rainierconnect.net> To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports MPLS.
Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS support...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:39 +0100, Edward J. Dore wrote:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their own MPLS stack.
Hi, Does Mikrotik publish their modified Linux kernel source? Might be interesting to look at it. Laurent
Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was incomplete and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore Freethought Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Keen" <walter.keen@rainierconnect.net> To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports MPLS.
Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS support...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
Just for the records, OpenBSD got fully functional MPLS stack. HTH, Dan #13685 (RS/Sec/SP) The CCIE troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com Bring order to your Private VLAN network: http://marathon-networks.com On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:39 +0100, Edward J. Dore wrote:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their own MPLS stack.
Hi,
Does Mikrotik publish their modified Linux kernel source? Might be interesting to look at it.
Laurent
Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was incomplete and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore Freethought Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Keen" <walter.keen@rainierconnect.net> To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports MPLS.
Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS support...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
Seems that Netbsd have MPLS too, with the advantage to run in a jukebox. http://wiki.netbsd.org/users/kefren/mpls/ -- Eduardo Schoedler 2012/8/31 Dan Shechter <danshtr@gmail.com>
Just for the records, OpenBSD got fully functional MPLS stack.
HTH, Dan #13685 (RS/Sec/SP) The CCIE troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com Bring order to your Private VLAN network: http://marathon-networks.com
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:39 +0100, Edward J. Dore wrote:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they
rolled their own MPLS stack.
Hi,
Does Mikrotik publish their modified Linux kernel source? Might be interesting to look at it.
Laurent
Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was
incomplete and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore Freethought Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Keen" <walter.keen@rainierconnect.net> To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports
MPLS.
Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS
support...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
They used to publish the source for their 2.4 kernel on routerboard.com (in fact, it's still available at http://routerboard.com/files/linux-2.4.31.zip), but I've not seen anything for the 2.6 kernel however and the routerboard.com site was redesigned a little while ago, seemingly without the links as far as I can tell. It might be a case of you need to ask them for it. Would be interesting to see which bits are GPL. Edward Dore Freethought Internet On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:44, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:39 +0100, Edward J. Dore wrote:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled their own MPLS stack.
Hi,
Does Mikrotik publish their modified Linux kernel source? Might be interesting to look at it.
Laurent
Last time I looked, the "mpls-linux" project over at SourceForge was incomplete and slow - I have no idea if this has changed at all recently however.
Edward Dore Freethought Internet
----- Original Message ----- From: "Walter Keen" <walter.keen@rainierconnect.net> To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
I'm fairly sure that Mikrotik software is based on linux, and supports MPLS.
Not too sure which package they use, or if they rolled their own MPLS support...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:42:14 PM Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk> writes:
They used to publish the source for their 2.4 kernel on routerboard.com (in fact, it's still available at http://routerboard.com/files/linux-2.4.31.zip), but I've not seen anything for the 2.6 kernel however and the routerboard.com site was redesigned a little while ago, seemingly without the links as far as I can tell.
It might be a case of you need to ask them for it. Would be interesting to see which bits are GPL.
There is no doubt that *all* bits of the Linux kernel are GPL. Whether vendors respect this is another question. But Mikrotik most certainly cannot distribute the Linux kernel, modified or not, without also providing the full source code. Bjørn
The Linux Kernel itself may be GPL (which I wasn't debating), however I see no reason why MikroTik's MPLS stack couldn't work in a similar way to the closed source NVidia driers where my understanding is that a GPL stub loads a binary blob. Have you asked MikroTik for a copy of the source? Edward Dore Freethought Internet On 1 Sep 2012, at 09:12, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk> writes:
They used to publish the source for their 2.4 kernel on routerboard.com (in fact, it's still available at http://routerboard.com/files/linux-2.4.31.zip), but I've not seen anything for the 2.6 kernel however and the routerboard.com site was redesigned a little while ago, seemingly without the links as far as I can tell.
It might be a case of you need to ask them for it. Would be interesting to see which bits are GPL.
There is no doubt that *all* bits of the Linux kernel are GPL. Whether vendors respect this is another question. But Mikrotik most certainly cannot distribute the Linux kernel, modified or not, without also providing the full source code.
Bjørn
Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> writes:
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
There was some renewed interest "recently" (i.e. last year). See the discussion starting at http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg180282.html But do note davem's replies in http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg180401.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg180646.html Don't put too much into the "fringe facility" comment. There have been similar comments on e.g. IPv6, and that went in some time ago :-) So in short: There is some interest and some people working on this in a direction which has some hope of mainline integration. Bjørn
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
On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
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.
+1. FIB performance and RIB performance are two very different things, and the former depends on the OS. Besides (although I haven't checked this recently), Quagga still does not support multiple FIBs. -- PacketDam: a cost-effective software solution against DDoS
Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else, would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for use as an iBGP blackhole route server? We currently do blackholes via manual config on one of our real routers but are wanting to add a software-based (on linux) system where we could script a way for some of our tech support folks to add blackhole routes at the direction of a network person where they can just enter a command and the IP address. Thanks, David
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else, would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for use as an iBGP blackhole route server? We currently do blackholes via manual config on one of our real routers but are wanting to add a software-based (on linux) system where we could script a way for some of our tech support folks to add blackhole routes at the direction of a network person where they can just enter a command and the IP address.
Thanks,
David
David Are you referring to the DROP[1] or BGPF[2] lists? If so there are various was to use that data. [1] http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/ [2] http://www.spamhaus.org/bgpf/ -- ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lathama@gmail.com http://lathama.net ~
On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else, would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for use as an iBGP blackhole route server?
You can use Quagga or Bird as a blackhole BGP injector, because the forwarding load is next to nothing and the number of prefixes in your blackhole RIB is likely to be small. You might - if you programatically get the blackhole criteria from your crm or some other database find ExaBGP to be easier to integrate with your data source. ExaBGP is a very lightweight BGP speaker that is perfectly suited for this purpose - http://code.google.com/p/exabgp/ Andy
Fell free to contact me if you have any questions about ExaBGP as I am painfully aware it's documentation is nowhere near what it should be. Thomas Sent from my iPad On 23 Aug 2012, at 08:52, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else, would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for use as an iBGP blackhole route server?
You can use Quagga or Bird as a blackhole BGP injector, because the forwarding load is next to nothing and the number of prefixes in your blackhole RIB is likely to be small.
You might - if you programatically get the blackhole criteria from your crm or some other database find ExaBGP to be easier to integrate with your data source. ExaBGP is a very lightweight BGP speaker that is perfectly suited for this purpose - http://code.google.com/p/exabgp/
Andy
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Of those who have used Quagga or Bird, or anything else, would either of them be appropriate and/or well suited for use as an iBGP blackhole route server? We currently do blackholes via manual config on one of our real routers but are wanting to add a software-based (on linux) system where we could script a way for some of our tech support folks to add blackhole routes at the direction of a network person where they can just enter a command and the IP address.
seems you want something like quagga on a secured host... that ought to be fine, you could even just make it an ebgp peer of 2-3 devices and use that with a route-map to reset the next-hop, there by not messing up your current nice ibgp mesh.
Thanks,
David
Don't forget about XORP if you have any need for multicast routing ... On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> 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_... as well as the NANOG thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/123027 But have not found anything worthwhile on the matter over the past 2 years.
Both Quagga and BIRD have developed since the comparison in 2010: http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga http://bird.network.cz/?o_news
But has anyone performed a more recent comparsion? Does Quagga still suffer from performance issues vs BIRD? Has anyone performed an RFC conformance test to see who complies more strictly to all the various RFCs?
If BIRD is so much better than Quagga why is there no instance at Oregon: http://www.routeviews.org/
I also notice that BSD Router Project supports both: http://bsdrp.net/bsdrp How well do the two coexist at the same time? Any migration issues going from Quagga to BIRD? Any feedback appreciated.
We now take you back to cable wars :-)
Thanks, Hank
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
participants (21)
-
Andrew Latham -
Andy Davidson -
Arnold Nipper -
Bjørn Mork -
Christian Esteve Rothenberg -
Christopher Morrow -
Dan Shechter -
David Hubbard -
David Lamparter -
Eduardo Schoedler -
Edward Dore -
Edward J. Dore
-
Guillaume Barrot -
Hank Nussbacher -
John Souter -
Laurent GUERBY -
Ray Soucy -
Seth Mattinen -
Thomas Mangin -
Vlad Galu -
Walter Keen