It's 'open' as in an open specifiaction. The algorithm was openly
published - unlike some other competing routing protocols.
Joe
Johan Granlund jo...@granlund.nu wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Matthew Dillon
Garrett Wollman speaks the truth when he says:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Because a previous link-state (aka shortest-path-first) routing
protocol had been deployed which was not.
I can't believe the
Garrett Wollman speaks the truth when he says:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there,
because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Because a previous link-state (aka shortest-path-first) routing
protocol had been deployed which was not.
If you're
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com writes:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Probably beqause they stuck OPEN on
On 28-Apr-99 Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
Most importantly:
- Recent values of GateD are distributed under a very unfriendly
license.
There's also zebra, in ports (as someone pointed out on -net the other
day),which seems to be GPL'ed. I haven't
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com writes:
:
: Given the choice between OSPF and RIP1/2, OSPF is far superior
: even on 'simple' networks. It is effectively an open protocol,
: like BGP.
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Um, can we get back to the subject at hand PLEASE? Who among you is
going to import the new routed? Garrett doesn't have testing
facilities for RIP, so it has to be someone else. Since Chuck also
appears to have boundless energy for this topic, might he be willing?
Sold, to the man in the long black coat! :)
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Um, can we get back to the subject at hand PLEASE? Who among you is
going to import the new routed? Garrett doesn't have testing
facilities for RIP, so it has to be someone else. Since Chuck also
appears to have
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Um, can we get back to the subject at hand PLEASE? Who among you is
going to import the new routed? Garrett doesn't have testing
facilities for RIP, so it has to be someone else. Since Chuck also
appears to have boundless energy for this topic,
GateD is *very* unfriendly. It is user-unfriendly and it is
OSS-unfriendly. ...
... Also, the older, more OSS friendly versions of gated have too
many bugs to be useable as a base. The OSPF implementation in it
wasn't really fixed until late last year.
I can vouch for that... again,
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com writes:
Given the choice between OSPF and RIP1/2, OSPF is far superior
even on 'simple' networks. It is effectively an open protocol,
like BGP.
Matt, can you clarify what you mean by open here? I know it's
what the O in OSPF stands for, but in what
:Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com writes:
:
: Given the choice between OSPF and RIP1/2, OSPF is far superior
: even on 'simple' networks. It is effectively an open protocol,
: like BGP.
:
:Matt, can you clarify what you mean by open here? I know it's
:what the O in OSPF stands for,
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com writes:
:
: Given the choice between OSPF and RIP1/2, OSPF is far superior
: even on 'simple' networks. It is effectively an open protocol,
: like BGP.
:
:Matt, can you clarify what you mean by open
:couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
:
:
: OSPF has been around for a long time.
:
:But RIP is older, and was the first routing scheme.
Which means nothing. RIP was designed for a time when networks
were simple. It has no multipath capabilities, it can *barely*
handle
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
IS-IS routing protocol. Those standards were *not* openly available. (I
believe they are now.)
Steinar Haug,
: I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
: couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
:
:Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
:IS-IS routing protocol. Those standards were *not* openly available. (I
:believe they are now.)
:
Umm ... OK, I thought you were saying that OSPF and BGP are open,
whereas RIP v1 and v2 are not. In that context, I wasn't sure what
you meant by open. If open means freely downloadable spec, then
presumably all of the above are open. So never mind :-).
Jim Shankland
NLynx Systems, Inc.
To
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 12:14:03PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
:IS-IS routing protocol. Those standards were *not* openly available. (I
:believe they are now.)
:
:Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
In message 199904281914.maa08...@apollo.backplane.com, Matthew Dillon writes:
: I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
: couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
:
:Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
:IS-IS routing protocol.
I consider ISIS dead these days, though I'm sure there are people who
still swear by it.
As far as I know, there is *active* development of IS-IS these days, see
for instance:
IS-IS Optimized Multipath (ISIS-OMP), Tony Li, Curtis Villamizar,
02/23/1999,
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
IS-IS routing protocol. Those standards were *not* openly
: I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
: couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
:
:Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
:IS-IS routing protocol. Those standards were *not* openly available. (I
:believe they are now.)
:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:34:51 -0400 (EDT), Chuck Robey chu...@picnic.mat.net
said:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Because a previous link-state (aka shortest-path-first) routing
protocol had been deployed which
:Umm ... OK, I thought you were saying that OSPF and BGP are open,
:whereas RIP v1 and v2 are not. In that context, I wasn't sure what
:you meant by open. If open means freely downloadable spec, then
:presumably all of the above are open. So never mind :-).
:
:Jim Shankland
:NLynx Systems, Inc.
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:34:51 -0400 (EDT), Chuck Robey
chu...@picnic.mat.net said:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Because a previous link-state (aka
Open (according to Lenny Kleinrock) meant available; thus OSPF
was supposed to mean Available, shortest path first. But, then again,
these meanings get changed with time. Open is now a codeword for
GNU/GPL/intellectual rights unencumbtered software. For OSPF, it was
simply a description of an
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:34:51PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
And you didn't know that the RIP spec is even older, and was publicly
available via an RFC (the same as OSPF?)
But, of course, RIP sucks in many well-known ways.
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
:
:
: OSPF has been around for a long time.
:
:But RIP is older, and was the first routing scheme.
Which means nothing. RIP was designed for a time when networks
were simple. It has
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chris Dillon wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I can't quite figure why they stuck the word open in there, because it
couldn't possibly be more open than RIP.
Probably because it was (at the time) in heavy competition with the OSI
IS-IS
Do we have any plans to update it to his latest offering? I believe
NetBSD's already done so and would be a good source for the bits if we
need them.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:55:03 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard
j...@zippy.cdrom.com said:
Do we have any plans to update it to his latest offering? I believe
NetBSD's already done so and would be a good source for the bits if we
need them.
I have asked someone to do so several times in the past when
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:55:03 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard
j...@zippy.cdrom.com said:
Do we have any plans to update it to his latest offering? I believe
NetBSD's already done so and would be a good source for the bits if we
need them.
I have
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chuck Robey chu...@picnic.mat.net
Finally learned enough about routing to understand this. Which router
program does OSPF? Gated?
As I recall from about '93 or so, yes.
Since OSPF seems to have a lot of good features, and it's hardly new,
why
Finally learned enough about routing to understand this. Which router
program does OSPF? Gated?
Yes.
Since OSPF seems to have a lot of good features, and it's hardly new,
why isn't a router using OSPF installed with FreeBSD?
Probably because:
- OSPF *is* more complex, and you need to
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:50:08 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no said:
Finally learned enough about routing to understand this. Which router
program does OSPF? Gated?
Yes.
Since OSPF seems to have a lot of good features, and it's hardly new,
why isn't a router using OSPF installed with FreeBSD?
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:50:08 +0200, sth...@nethelp.no said:
Finally learned enough about routing to understand this. Which router
program does OSPF? Gated?
Yes.
Since OSPF seems to have a lot of good features, and it's hardly new,
why
:
: - Recent values of GateD are distributed under a very unfriendly
: license.
:
:Must be more to it, then. The basic idea of what the OSPF router
:program should do, it doesn't sound like a huge problem to do, and the
:actual specs are pretty well laid out and public, right?
:
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
Most importantly:
- Recent values of GateD are distributed under a very unfriendly
license.
There's also zebra, in ports (as someone pointed out on -net the other day),
which seems to be GPL'ed. I haven't tried either of the two except to poke
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 09:36:09AM +0930, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
Most importantly:
- Recent values of GateD are distributed under a very unfriendly
license.
And the last free version is hideous in the extreme.
There's also zebra, in ports
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:45:50PM +1200, Joe Abley wrote:
It's also probably worth mentioning that Zebra is being developed
in an extremely active and proactive fashion, and the principal developers
are extremely open to contributed feedback and code.
And it says right on their information
Um, can we get back to the subject at hand PLEASE? Who among you is
going to import the new routed? Garrett doesn't have testing
facilities for RIP, so it has to be someone else. Since Chuck also
appears to have boundless energy for this topic, might he be willing? :-)
- Jordan
To
41 matches
Mail list logo
