On Sep 15, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Adam Thompson <athom...@athompso.net> wrote:
> Is BGPd in Quagga likely to be a huge PITA? If not, I'll probably take a
> stab at integrating it into the GUI. If I can figure out how to build
> packages, anyway. (I'd prefer OpenOSPFd instead of Quagga, but that seems
> like a dead duck in pfSense now.)
I strongly prefer Quagga over OpenBSD’s “solution”, but mostly because ISC has
gotten behind it.
https://github.com/opensourcerouting/quagga
> I do now need a more-capable router than what pfSense gives me, in the sense
> that I need to be able to run EGPs and IGPs simultaneously.
Perhaps we need a separate ‘pro routing’ product/project that eliminates a lot
of the “home network” functionality that doesn’t belong on a box that core to
forwarding packets.
Jim
> -Adam
>
> Jim Pingle <li...@pingle.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2013 11:58 AM, Adam Thompson wrote:
>>> Reading the release notes for 2.1 reminded me of something... shouldn't the
>>> use of PBI packaging now automagically resolve the conflicts between
>>> OpenBGPd/OpenOSPFd and Quagga?
>>
>> Somewhat.
>>
>> The actual calls to the binaries in their respective packages use the
>> links in /usr/local/(s)bin/ so they still conflict since the links from
>> one PBI will clobber the links from another.
>>
>> If the packages were adjusted to call the binaries from their isolated
>> PBI dirs, then it may be OK, though since the actual binary names are
>> the same (e.g. bgpd) some things such as the service status may not
>> reflect the right status.
>>
>> Jim
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
