> 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
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
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> >
> > :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 beqause they stuck "OPEN" on _everything_ f
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> >
> > :Matthew Dillon 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.
> > :
> > :M
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
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 OS
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 simp
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, becaus
"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
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < 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 was not.
>
: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,
<
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 was not.
> But RIP is older, and was the first routing scheme.
Um, no.
> :> 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
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*
> 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,
"IS-IS extensions fo
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
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...@nethel
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.
:> 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.)
:
:S
> 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 Ha
: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*
handl
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :Matthew Dillon 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
:Matthew Dillon 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 way are OSP
Matthew Dillon 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 way are OSPF and
BGP
> 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... a
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 top
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
"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 will
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 Unsubscribe
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
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,
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
:>
:> - 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:
> <
> >> 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 F
<> 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:
[three good reasons deleted]
Most
> 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
>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Chuck Robey
>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 isn't a router u
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < 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 Vern has
>
38 matches
Mail list logo