PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:41 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Quagga and OpenBGP
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP
On 30/11/06, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
Zebra/Quagga.
Side comments?
dems
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:40:44AM +0800, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 01:40 +0800, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2006.12.01 01:40:44 +0800:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
On 11/30/06, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
7 matches
Mail list logo
