Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
i think it's not too soon for the bsd community to become less reactionary. (yes, i know that's ironic coming from me.) https://nomadbsd.org/ i'd like freebsd to be fit for a lot of purposes. a complete OS is one of those that i will use the most. but not the only one for me, and not the only one for the community. take deep breaths. re: John Howie wrote on 2024-05-15 19:04: FreeBSD (and BSD Unix in general) has a rich history of being a “complete” OS – kernel and userland. If there was really a demand for a minimalist version of FreeBSD, why have people not forked FreeBSD and created it by now? There is also nanobsd, as an option, for those that want minimalist installs (yes, I know it is meant for embedded systems, but it works). I think we need to stop trying to find solutions for non-existent problems. *From: *owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org on behalf of Marek Zarychta *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM *To: *freebsd-net@freebsd.org *Subject: *Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Today Michael Sierchio wrote: There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base" system should be packages, and managed that way. That would facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of the base system. Too much is included by default in Base. FreeBSD is a comprehensive OS, and most users still do appreciate this feature. I remember that we had also RCS tools in the base system, they got purged (moved to the ports tree really), most users are fine with it, but for managing single config files RCS is still the best-suited versioning system. We still have ftpd(8), but it was almost removed, there was a strong battle on the mailing list to preserve it. FTP protocol is as old as BSD, but it's still valid and, so far not deprecated. A similar story was with smbfs(5). The same probably applies to RIP/RIPng. What if we would better remove LLVM from the base if the system is bloated ? LLVM needs frequent updates and keeping it in base is far more risky in terms of system security than keeping RIP daemons. Why do we still have odd tools like biff(1) in the base ? On the other hand, for a significant share of the user base, the more tiny the OS is, the better. The transition to PkgBase should fulfill user needs, especially those, who want a minimalist OS. So please, go ahead and switch to PgkBase if your FreeBSD system contains undesired software. Cheers Marek On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie mailto:j...@thehowies.com>> wrote: I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, distribute, and install it. Sent from my iPhone > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO mailto:to...@cedro.info>> wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott mailto:uatka3z4z...@thismonkey.com>> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: >>> (..) >>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port such >>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how >>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. >> >> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It >> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings. >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. >> >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to its >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've used >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. >> >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvinced >> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I >> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn't >> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regularly >> justify their presence in the OS. >> >> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and >> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in the >> first place? > > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove
Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
FreeBSD (and BSD Unix in general) has a rich history of being a “complete” OS – kernel and userland. If there was really a demand for a minimalist version of FreeBSD, why have people not forked FreeBSD and created it by now? There is also nanobsd, as an option, for those that want minimalist installs (yes, I know it is meant for embedded systems, but it works). I think we need to stop trying to find solutions for non-existent problems. From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org on behalf of Marek Zarychta Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Today Michael Sierchio wrote: There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base" system should be packages, and managed that way. That would facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of the base system. Too much is included by default in Base. FreeBSD is a comprehensive OS, and most users still do appreciate this feature. I remember that we had also RCS tools in the base system, they got purged (moved to the ports tree really), most users are fine with it, but for managing single config files RCS is still the best-suited versioning system. We still have ftpd(8), but it was almost removed, there was a strong battle on the mailing list to preserve it. FTP protocol is as old as BSD, but it's still valid and, so far not deprecated. A similar story was with smbfs(5). The same probably applies to RIP/RIPng. What if we would better remove LLVM from the base if the system is bloated ? LLVM needs frequent updates and keeping it in base is far more risky in terms of system security than keeping RIP daemons. Why do we still have odd tools like biff(1) in the base ? On the other hand, for a significant share of the user base, the more tiny the OS is, the better. The transition to PkgBase should fulfill user needs, especially those, who want a minimalist OS. So please, go ahead and switch to PgkBase if your FreeBSD system contains undesired software. Cheers Marek On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie mailto:j...@thehowies.com>> wrote: I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, distribute, and install it. Sent from my iPhone > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO > mailto:to...@cedro.info>> wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott > mailto:uatka3z4z...@thismonkey.com>> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: >>> (..) >>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port such >>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how >>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. >> >> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It >> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings. >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. >> >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to its >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've used >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. >> >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvinced >> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I >> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn't >> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regularly >> justify their presence in the OS. >> >> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and >> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in the >> first place? > > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly > working code?? > > There are more and more ideas in recent times like this. > > Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility > removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks > more like diversion and sabotage than progress. > > If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason > it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null. >
Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
Today Michael Sierchio wrote: There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base" system should be packages, and managed that way. That would facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of the base system. Too much is included by default in Base. FreeBSD is a comprehensive OS, and most users still do appreciate this feature. I remember that we had also RCS tools in the base system, they got purged (moved to the ports tree really), most users are fine with it, but for managing single config files RCS is still the best-suited versioning system. We still have ftpd(8), but it was almost removed, there was a strong battle on the mailing list to preserve it. FTP protocol is as old as BSD, but it's still valid and, so far not deprecated. A similar story was with smbfs(5). The same probably applies to RIP/RIPng. What if we would better remove LLVM from the base if the system is bloated ? LLVM needs frequent updates and keeping it in base is far more risky in terms of system security than keeping RIP daemons. Why do we still have odd tools like biff(1) in the base ? On the other hand, for a significant share of the user base, the more tiny the OS is, the better. The transition to PkgBase should fulfill user needs, especially those, who want a minimalist OS. So please, go ahead and switch to PgkBase if your FreeBSD system contains undesired software. Cheers Marek On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie wrote: I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, distribute, and install it. Sent from my iPhone > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: >>> (..) >>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port such >>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how >>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. >> >> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It >> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings. >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. >> >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to its >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've used >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. >> >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvinced >> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I >> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn't >> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regularly >> justify their presence in the OS. >> >> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and >> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in the >> first place? > > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly > working code?? > > There are more and more ideas in recent times like this. > > Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility > removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks > more like diversion and sabotage than progress. > > If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason > it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null. >
Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base" system should be packages, and managed that way. That would facilitate removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for various protocols, etc. and permit them to be updated independent of the base system. Too much is included by default in Base. On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie wrote: > I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the > justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, > distribute, and install it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott > wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: > >>> (..) > >>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. > if > >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD > >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port > such > >>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how > >>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. > >> > >> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. > It > >> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its > shortcomings. > >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature > sets of > >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. > >> > >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to > its > >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've > used > >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. > >> > >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are > unconvinced > >> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I > >> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that > wasn't > >> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to > regularly > >> justify their presence in the OS. > >> > >> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and > >> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in > the > >> first place? > > > > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly > > working code?? > > > > There are more and more ideas in recent times like this. > > > > Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility > > removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks > > more like diversion and sabotage than progress. > > > > If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason > > it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null. > > > >
Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile, distribute, and install it. Sent from my iPhone > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: >>> (..) >>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port such >>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how >>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. >> >> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It >> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings. >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. >> >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to its >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've used >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. >> >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvinced >> of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I >> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn't >> suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regularly >> justify their presence in the OS. >> >> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and >> route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in the >> first place? > > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly > working code?? > > There are more and more ideas in recent times like this. > > Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility > removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks > more like diversion and sabotage than progress. > > If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason > it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null. >
Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: > > (..) > > i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if > > there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD > > implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port such > > as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how > > the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. > > I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It > has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings. > It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of > IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. > > Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to its > removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've used > FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. > > Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvinced > of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I > understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn't > suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regularly > justify their presence in the OS. > > If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and > route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in the > first place? Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly working code?? There are more and more ideas in recent times like this. Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks more like diversion and sabotage than progress. If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null.
Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote: > [note: this is a copy of a mail i sent this to arch@, but someone > suggested also asking net@ about this.] > > hello, > > currently FreeBSD ships routed(8) and route6d(8) which implement the RIP > resp. RIPng routing protocols. > > many years ago, it was fairly common for hosts to run these protocols to > get their routing table and it made sense to ship an implementation with > the operating systems. > > nowadays, these are fairly niche protocols and have been replaced in > most networks by either static routing tables (mostly just a default > route) or more modern routing protocols like IBGP/EBGP, OSPF or IS-IS. > as such, i'm not convinced there's any value continuing to ship these > with the OS. > > for people who do want to continue running RIP/RIPng, there are several > implementations available in ports, such as net/bird2 and net/quagga. > > i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src. if > there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD > implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port such > as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how > the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled. > > does anyone have an opinion on this? Hi, I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings. It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of IOS that do not include any link-state protocols. Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to its removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative. I've used FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements. Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are unconvinced of the value of shipping it. As a user I definitely see the value. I understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that wasn't suggested as a reason. All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to regularly justify their presence in the OS. If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and route6d to a port? Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in the first place? Scott
