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?
Seth Mattinen se...@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
Edward Dore edward.d...@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
@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
@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
recently
however.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
- Original Message -
From: Walter Keen walter.k...@rainierconnect.net
To: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM
Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
if this has changed at all recently
however.
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
- Original Message -
From: Walter Keen walter.k...@rainierconnect.net
To: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012 2:00:52 AM
Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga
- Original Message -
From: Walter Keen walter.k...@rainierconnect.net
To: Seth Mattinen se...@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
: 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
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
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
Subject: Re: Bird vs Quagga revisited
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
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 a...@nosignal.org wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:04, Raymond Burkholder r...@oneunified.net wrote:
To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold up for
handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duties in a BGP/MPLS environment
for a smaller ISP?
I am using BIRD as a RR between a busy VRF and
Don't forget about XORP if you have any need for multicast routing ...
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Hank Nussbacher h...@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:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Hubbard
dhubb...@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
On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:42, David Hubbard dhubb...@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,
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?
To expand the opinion set, how do Quagga, Bird, exaBGP, OpenBGPd hold up for
handling Multi-Protocol BGP Route Reflector duties in a
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_RouteServer_N48.pdf
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
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
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
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Hubbard
dhubb...@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
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
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
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
On 13 Feb 2010, at 01:01, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 13/02/2010, at 11:51 AM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
fwiw, I've also heard good things about bgpd(8) and ospfd(8), but I
haven't tried those either...zebra/Quagga just stuck.
OpenBGPd would be great for a public route server at an IX.
Nathan has
During the discussion, a developers of Bird said that their filtering code
_may_ still have bugs (when performing community based filtering).
Someone rightly pointed to me that the commenter was not a BIRD developer .. my
mistake sorry.
I will recall my statement until I can watch to the
On 17/02/2010 01:19, Randy Bush wrote:
i would add decades of bad anecdotes where the data plane is not
congruent with the control plane. in general, when plane N is not
congruent with plane N+1, management and debugging are problematic.
I've always maintained publicly and privately that
Quagga does not really behave well with lots of peers (lots 200), but
there will be an optimized route server version soon.
This was discussed today at Linx 68. Linx is very pleased with Bird - they
could not get Quagga working due to load issues.
With large numbers of peers, the update
On 16/02/2010 19:47, Thomas Mangin wrote:
During the discussion, a developers of Bird said that their filtering
code _may_ still have bugs (when performing community based
filtering).
medium-long term, community based route-server filtering has no future.
There will be two reasons for its
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:47:13PM +, Thomas Mangin wrote:
(with a domino's effect as well).
Your routes processed in 30 minutes or it's free?
- Matt
(Yeah, I know, back in my hole...)
medium-long term, community based route-server filtering has no future.
There will be two reasons for its demise: it cannot easily accommodate
asn32 and it does not allow predetermined filtering and hence sane
loc-rib instance management.
i would add decades of bad anecdotes where the data
[mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:19 PM
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: BIRD vs Quagga
medium-long term, community based route-server filtering has no
future.
There will be two reasons for its demise: it cannot easily
accommodate
asn32 and it does
As in SS7, which has successfully managed the phone system for
decades, where the control and data plane are explicitly separated?
and has such wonderful margins
and, btw, separation is not necessarily non-congruence
of pathological
traffic in the bearer channel interrupting your control traffic (as with ISDN
subscriber trunks).
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:56 PM
To: Tomas L. Byrnes
Cc: Nick Hilliard; NANOG list
Subject: Re: BIRD vs Quagga
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
As in SS7, which has successfully managed the phone system for
decades, where the control and data plane are explicitly separated?
and has such wonderful margins
and, btw, separation is not necessarily non-congruence
cough
http://archive.psg.com/080918.plnog-complex.pdf
On 2010-02-16, at 19:53, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
There's significant theoretical work, backed up with lots of practical
experience connecting a lot more nodes in real time in a lot more places
than the Internet currently does, that posits that the control and
forwarding plane should actually
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
I am somewhat intrigued at this network you mention with which people have
practical experience that has more nodes than the Internet does, though.
That'd be quite a network.
what's the current estimate on PSTN
On 2010-02-16, at 22:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
I am somewhat intrigued at this network you mention with which people have
practical experience that has more nodes than the Internet does, though.
That'd be quite a
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 2010-02-16, at 22:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
I am somewhat intrigued at this network you mention with which people have
practical experience
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 21:50 -0800, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-02-16, at 19:53, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
There's significant theoretical work, backed up with lots of practical
experience connecting a lot more nodes in real time in a lot more places
than the Internet currently does, that posits
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 23:03 -0800, Jake Khuon wrote:
The best solution we came up with at the time was to add some control
knobs to rsd in order to allow us to quickly take down the BGP session
to the peer on the falsely advertising RS.
Sorry... this was poorly worded. We did not actually
On 13.02.2010 02:01 Nathan Ward wrote
On 13/02/2010, at 11:51 AM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
fwiw, I've also heard good things about bgpd(8) and ospfd(8), but I
haven't tried those either...zebra/Quagga just stuck.
OpenBGPd would be great for a public route server at an IX.
Be cautious
I was wondering what kind of experience the nanog userbase has had with these
two packages.
Thanks
--
Jason Fried
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you
are not the intended
Fried, Jason (US - Hattiesburg) wrote:
I was wondering what kind of experience the nanog userbase has had with these
two packages.
Quagga++.
I've never tried the other.
I use Quagga for OSPF, OSPFv3 and BGP (IPv4 and IPv6). With a bit of
trickery, it fits in nicely with my RANCID setup, and
http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof15/
Has quite a few talk about Quagga/Bird as they are used as route servers in
Europe.
For a route server use, BGP under very high number of peers, it seems bird now
behave better than anything else.
so for normal use, it would seems that whatever you pick will
On 13/02/2010, at 11:51 AM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
fwiw, I've also heard good things about bgpd(8) and ospfd(8), but I
haven't tried those either...zebra/Quagga just stuck.
OpenBGPd would be great for a public route server at an IX.
It's not so great for use in a network unless you run it on
49 matches
Mail list logo
