Slashdot Mirror
OpenBSD Project Announces OpenBGPD
44BSD writes "As noted at undeadly, the OpenBSD Project has announced an BSD-licensed implementation of the Border Gateway Protocol, BGP. Project details, design goals, documentation, and more are at the project web site. BGP is documented in RFC 1771.
Lucky for Cisco, BSD is dying..."
Lucky for everyone else, a BSD license will make it easy to implement in every other router box and make it cheap. Or so I hope.
No sig
atleast theres some humor shown here by slashdot staff :)
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
Unfortuantely, even the fanciest boxes running BSD can't complete on a pure throughput basis with good Cisco routers. An twenty-four port gigabit Cisco router has a 48 Gbps backplane, but a PC running BSD will be limited by its bus--the fastest servers have a 64 bit 133 MHz bus with PCI-X. That's 8 Gbps. And you can't put more than a handful of network cards in even the largest BSD-capable server--there simply aren't the expansion slots. So this really couldn't be used for core Internet routers.
And, of course, you don't need to be running BGP on small networks--it's only when you've got a number of large networks joined together, at a chokepoint, where you need to use BGP to properly route traffic. So there's no point to it for small businesses with who might be trying to save money over a Cisco router--they don't need BRP.
I wonder, then: where is the market for this....?
---
How does this stack up with Zebra?
Yesterday, I tried to compile OpenBGPD on Linux. Unfortunately, there is no "portable version" available (unlike OpenSSH), and the source code contains a lot of #includes and library function that are specific to (Open)BSD. That obviously doesn't help portability, and I'm a bit sad that the OpenBSD project doesn't go the portable way and makes its userland as easily compilable on other Unices as possible.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Just because it's BSD doesn't mean that it's going to be limited to PC Architecture.
This project could give a boost to manufacturers of competing kit by having a code base that it doesn't have to start from scratch and can be run on a minimal BSD distribution.
There's nothing to stop A.N.Other manufacturer creating their own arcitecture and running this ontop.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
- Education
- Experimentation
- Small ISPs that cannot afford cisco
- Competition is good
- etc. etc.
Many, many sites use BGP at less that 8Gbps aggregate throughput - hell I know of several sites that still run partial feeds over ISDN BRI. I just don't see where you get the idea that BGP is only for core routers.
>I wonder, then: where is the market for this....?
Perhaps when hackers start using the vulnerabilities in the BGP protocol to attack the Internet and those vulnerabilities are not found to be present or are fixed faster in the open BSD code, that'll justify the project's existence.
I mean we've already seen that open-source has fewer vulnerabilites than closed-source in general (Think I.I.S. vs Apache), so this will just become another way to secure the Internet.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
BGP provides a reasonable way for organisations with backup links to an ISP to manage automatic failover. At ADSL speeds a PC is more than adequate and quite a lot cheaper than a Cisco 1700 series router with ADSL and ISDN WICs.
I think some people believe it.
For all of you that wants a broader view of the routing state of the art you may have a look at Zebra routing engine
"Unfortuantely, even the fanciest boxes running BSD can't complete on a pure throughput basis with good Cisco routers."
I disagree. It may not run quite as well (very close, though) but the price difference will be astounding!
the openbsd team has branched off quite a few projects where they saw the security and/or license was insufficient and needed to be redone.
OpenSSH, who's box doesn't have this?
OpenNTPD, a network time protocol daemon and server, recently released.
OpenBGPD, the border gateway protocol daemon.
They were pioneers in the use of stack protection software on the i386 platform (kernel and compiler), as well as privilage seperated daemons (it's in your sshd now), and randomized library linking locations.
(i think i'm missing a few, anyone care to fill them in?)
they have implemented (a far better implementation over the old one that they didn't write) their i.p. filter, PF (which has now made it into netbsd, freebsd, and hopefully linux soon enough). this includes INSANE amounts of configurability options, with integrated routing and traffic shaping.
many people grumble about how the project is run and its priorities. but we all benefit from their efforts. i think i'm going to buy a cd even though i am not an openbsd user. these sales help keep these projects going.
It appears that a lot of good stuff keeps coming out of OpenBSD. They truly focus on the things that matter (for them). Not gadgets or eye candy, but clean, solid, secure network implementations. Kudos again!
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Right now, you're absolutely right: doing this in a PC would cost as much as or more than a dedicated solution, especially when you factor in the infamous TCO. And as you say later, small networks have no need for this sort of thing. But again, in a few years it may be affordable to do this on commodity hardware. Once the enormous cost of big iron from Cisco et al. comes down, I think a lot of those small networks might just find needs. Especially if we get into the much-touted Internet of the Future where everything has an IP address.
Luckily OpenBSD's work is "open source" and Cisco's is ever increasingly confusing and expensive.
Yes, and a Boeing 747 can carry a hell of a lot more passengers than a Citroen CX. Guess which one is most cost-effective and works best for a 40-mile commute?
A handful of these: http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products /pro1000mt_quad_server_adapter.htm
makes a pretty cool BSD router from any server. Sure the throughput on a Cisco is alot higher, but so is the price, and as others said, there are many sites that need BGP but don't need more than 8 gbps throughput.
Sucks? Odd, it has never onced crashed for me in Windows, Linux, or OpenBSD.
In fact I've even had the following plugins work without hassle nor error: flash, quicktime, realmedia, wmv, mid, and so forth. And unless you are either A.) behind in internet news regarding programs you use or B.) only have an internet connection ever few months, then the plugins created by 3rd parties (such as tab prefernces and all-in-one mouse gestures) won't cause you conflicts.
It renders CSS1 and CSS2 with a lethal whip of strictness, much like how it handles HTML. Not to mention that if you have -ever- even seen the source code, you will notice how streamlined it is compared to most other browsers on the web. You're blowing hot air and spreading FUD, without research.
Chances are, you are one of the people who stopped using Windows because "it was buggy", but never took the time to figure out why it was crashing on you and not the people who have had amazing, bug-free experiences with it. Or, you could be the Windows zealot who refuses to use Linux because you won't take the time to learn the interface, and thus choose to whine about how "unfriendly" it is, when in fact it's only different.
Anonymous Cowards... got to love the spineless bastards in the world.
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
...on where to find resources that will help me write portable code? What parts of the code is it that FreeBSD would normally have trouble with?
Incidentally, I think OpenBGPD is a great idea even if it never gets used in real-life situations. It's the principle of the thing really.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Unless I'm hugely mistaken, Juniper started their (very successful) line of routers on what beared only little difference with a beefed up PC.
If you find a market for a BGP capable router cheaper than the ones sold by Cisco, you can probably afford to spend some time designing an architecture which will accomodate a lot of traffic.
How BSD is DYING ???? *BSD are releasing BGP !!!! Firewalls, Servers, the majority web servers on world are runnig BSD How dying ?!?!?!?!?!?!
I agree with you on throughput limitations. But lets look at some facts. The second biggest router company manages there rotuers with a BSD kernel (Juniper) and runs the routing bits in that kernel (with hooks to move everything into hardware once the desision is made) PC's make good general purpose routing procs they make poor packet shufflers if you take a felable platform with a lot of headroom you can make a great administrative box and if it's coupled with a good hardware asic to push packets it can scale.
Now small networks need BGP as well. It's the best way to have multiple redundant links to providers while running servers beyond mail. I have a small pile of clients some as small as a couple T1's running BGP between two providers.
No sir I dont like it.
even send in some links, so I can lazily NOT google for them... :-) please?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
there's always 8x PCI-E for transfering lots of data. That'd give you 20 Gbit in each direction. 16x PCI-E NICs and even 32x PCI-E NICs should be available in a not so distant future.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Pretty much. It's the same there too. Everyone wants their project to do better.
:)). I like Linux, it performs really well. But I don't like that it's pretty dirty and hackish, which is certainly enough to put me off it. I get the same technical advantages with NetBSD but cleaner and with less maintainance (Good Thing).
The truth is, Linux and BSD are meant to coexist, but not for the same purposes. BSDs are meant as code bases that serve purposes really very well, cleanly and with dedication. They won't just accept "any patch that compiles" as has happened in Linux a lot. They're mostly there for the developers' ideas and needs, and usually users end up with the same needs.
On the other hand, Linux is meant to be the kernel for everyone, and this seems to be the case. It runs on just about everything (even if not in the mainline kernel) and it runs pretty well for the most part. The code base is not clean, but it is functional, which is what matters scientifically. It gets contribution from unspeakable numbers of developers and research and this shows - it has something it does much better than every other system (but yes, every other system has at least one thing it does much better than Linux).
Right now I run NetBSD because I wanted production machines I could stake my life on (still living). I use Linux on my laptop mostly because it has an NVidia card for which NetBSD drivers don't exist (or at least aren't easily downloadable
Matter of opinion though. These things change. Hell I dropped FreeBSD (see tag) after a long time of worshipping it, just because 5.3 has too many regressions to appeal to me.
Sam ty sig.
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
I picked the articles about FreeBSD because it's the BSD "mainstream" version, and now I'm talking about popularity. Of course this means nothing about the quality (let's remember that Windows is the "mainstream" OS... ;). In fact, NetBSD and OpenBSD are usually considered on the same level of excellence.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The Cisco 3600 series *does* use PCI for its bus. Those two or four or six slots on a 36xx series are good ol' PCI, they're just in a Cisco form factor, not the Wintel PCI form factor you're used to seeing. I do believe this means every NM form factor slot is a PCI - 26xx, 28xx, 36xx, 37xx, 38xx, and some other stuff all use it.
Cisco uses PCI because its a fast, competent bus, with lots of inexpensive parts due to PC volume driving chipset costs. They get more out of an 80MHz MIPS processor in a 3620 than you get out of a 1GHz Athlon because the hardware is tuned to do nothing but move packets from point A to point B.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
I misspoke and I apologize. I said 'child' when I meant 'querulous binary Linux distribution fanboy'.
BSD might be dying, but not in this century, and it's kernel will be a much prettier corpse than anything to come out of kernel.org
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Actually, if you look at the architecture of a Juniper Networks router, it is based on FreeBSD. The Routing Engine is a merely a normal PC motherboard running the Free BSD kernel and Juniper code to handle the routing protocols and system management. There are custom-built ASICs in the Packet Forwarding Engines that handle the packet processing. This architecture has proven to easily out perform the old monolithic architecture of Cisco.
Yes, a higher-end Cisco probably out performs my laptop running OpenBSD and OpenBGPD, but my laptop wasn't designed to be a high-end router.
I'm guessing that the combination of OpenBGPD, OpenVPN, OpenSSH and Asterisk (running on BSD) are going to be a real challenge for Cisco, at least in the home and small to medium business markets. Don't forget that this is the very same team that brough us OpenSSH, which is now so widely used as to be ubiquitous. The convergence of wireless, broadband and VOIP need a flexible router/firewall appliance. Especially now that chip makers (VIA and whatever Motorola is calling its chip division ) are adding RNGs and 'on chip gigabit/sec ethernet' (respectively), it seems like you can build a formidable router with the form factor and power consumption of your typical Linksys home router. For this market, BSD is a natural choice for any manufacture with cold feet about basing a product on GPLed software.
Think global, act loco
Zebra and Quagga already exist. They are supposed to provide BGP among other protocols. I just dont get why they dont join those projects to improve them rather than fork out a new one.
Improving the architecture of say Quagga will be more beneficial and probably welcome than forking out your own. It would also keep the code portable while supporting rip, ospf isis etc. I'd love to see a secure version of Quagga for OpenBSD, sounds much better than an all OpenBSD suite.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
So this really couldn't be used for core Internet routers.
Well, I believe that core Internet routers are about 1% of global router market, the rest of them rarely sees more than 100Mbit combined throughput on all WAN ports.
So, several good managed switches and couple of redundant routers on OpenBGPD would serve well over 90% of the market.
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
For those who think that BGP is useful just on routers have some catching up to do. When doing IP anycast, it is essential to have some kind of dynamic routing protocol working on the anycast hosts. The host constantly need to communicate their reachability to the router facing the rest of the world. If the host goes down when there's a satic route, the traffic is null routed.
Thus the resurgence in development of quagga after forking it from zebra. OpenBGPd, i am sure will have more IP anycast nodes running it then someone running it as pure edge routers.
One of the most important reason for BGP to work on host based system i
BGP by itself is meaningless. You need at least OSPF for a small network and ISIS for a large one to be able to use it and you need them in a form where the BGP knows everything about an OSPF or ISIS route.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
It wasn't that long ago that you would have to spend $100,000 to get a SWITCH (not a router, just a switch) that could sustain a gigabit of traffic. Now you can do it for a couple thousand on generic PC hardware. Not bad if you ask me. Outside of academia and large corporate networks, there aren't many folks pushing 8gigabits of traffic around anyway so I don't see that as a limiting factor for many individuals and small-mid sized companies.
Cheers,
Lucky for Cisco, BSD is dying...
I case you really are stuck in 1987, Cisco does a couple more things than routing these days.
Why just a few weeks ago, I setup a multi-site network using Cisco switches and multiple VLAN's and I typed in the appropriate commands (yes, cryptic until you bother to learn) and it worked. No fuss, no troubleshooting, free documentation - this is why people buy Cisco..
Yes, they're market-dominant, yes, they're expensive (hint: buy refurb) and yes, they're into certifications and the like, but that doesn't make them Microsoft. Imagine if Microsoft made rock-solid products and wasn't always trying to screw the rest of the world.
Now, start setting up VOIP networks, dynamic VLAN's and fully-meshed WAN networks, stuff a dozen or more pieces in a rack, and you'll start to see that a PC with a FOSS OS isn't always the right answer.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The OpenBSD crowd often don't play well with others. They have a completely different set of priorities than other projects.
There was a discussion on the misc@ list, and it basically came down to completely different priorities plus lots of OpenBSD specific hooks.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Zebra/Quagga are fundamentally flawed, so badly that you cannot fix them without a complete rewrite.
besides that, I could have only worked in 30 minutes chunks on that codebase, due to the breaks needed to go puking.
As long as you have enough of an IGP cloud so the BGP peer IPs are visible to all BGP peers, you can run BGP for (most) of your routing (and just duplicate the peering IPs between IGP-of-choice and iBGP).
Not that it's *necessarily* a good idea, mind you. But it does make *some* things way easier.
Aparantly you've never heard of Juniper Networks. They're router solutions beat the pants off of Cisco for throughput and price, and, they're running FreeBSD on their routers.
I would disagree with you on that one. I have worked on a project where we used a x86 board running the configuration plane for a router/switch and used Intel Based Network Processosr for the data path/switching function. Yeah it had the works -- Throughput, Expansion slots.
Now the catch is that we were running our tweaked version of NetBSD on the x86 control plane, which was running the routing daemons. So if there is a BSD licenced BGP out there, it is possible to deploy it on the above mentioned box.
So my point is that we actually have rather fancy boxes out there running *BSD.
You don't know much about BGP and its real world uses, don't you? First of all, there are a lot of relatively simple, relatively slow WANs using BGP both internally and on their borders. For example, just being dual-homed the right way (TM) with 2 ISPs for resiliency, even with slow T1 links, means that you're doing BGP. Second, even in ISPs and large companies you could have lots of situations where you could appreciate having a cheap, flexible PC doing BGP. Route reflectors, non-core routers (relatively slow customers/PoPs/remote offices), routers injecting BGP-learned routes into OSPF or other internal protocols (and vice-versa), etc.
What about the 6500 series, alot of cisco hardware is PC based (PIX 525)? but.. look at a big expensive 6509, arent they something like 256gb on the backplane?
FYI, buying from Intel is discouraged
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
How about a 32 lane PCI-E implementation with no lames or blinks devoted to Doom III? 40Gbps backplane, bidirectional.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware
PCIe's bandwidth gains over PCI are considerable. A single lane is capable of transmitting 2.5Gbps in each direction, simultaneously.
PCI will go away soon enough in PC-land. We'll be moving on to PCI-Express. You get to pick your bandwidth and it gets a lot faster than PCI in the top end. I figure Cisco will be moving to PCI-Express as well, to take advantage of preexisting designs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Been there, done that as a result of not knowing how to configure IGP on a unix box 10 years ago with gated. No thanks.
In btw, exchange points and load balancing are still more then enough to make a living off. And hopefully someone will at get an OSPF daemon working or get a good API to use this BGP daemon with a foreign OSPF implementation which lacks in terms of BGP.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I guess you've never heard of Juniper Networks (http://www.juniper.net) . The routing and management engine all run in FreeBSD on an x86 platform, while the actual forwarding of the packets is done by their ASICs. It kicks the crap out of any piece of cisco gear out there for speed, high availability, and maintainability. Your bgp process dies? Simply restart it! Can't do that on a cisco, I guarantee it!
It is good for small ISPs who don't have a lot of peers. It obviously isn't meant for high bandwidth core inernet routers. Also, OpenBGPD might be good for businesses that need to manage multiple internet connections to different ISPs. BGP is the only way to go if you actually want to have real connectivity redundancy. It isn't uncommon.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
"an BSD-licensed implementation of the Border Gateway Protocol, BGP"
So I guess this now means Longhorn will support BGP.
"There are already four-port ethernet NICs out there."
'man qe' and 'man qec' on a [Net|Open]BSD box gives you some details, but for years, Sun QuadEthernet and QuadFastEthernet cards have been a solid option for multi-port ethernet connectivity on SPARC and UltraSPARC boxes.
And heck, if this means my little 50Mhz SPARCclassic box can do BGP routing, that's great!
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
BGP is often used when multihoming. Hell, I have a full BGP feed to my home network.
Short answer: hopefully. ;)
Longer answers: here and here
(..i'm starting to think that a bot could come in handy
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
The way I see it the OpenBSD wanted a slick and simple BGP daemon, not the kitchen sink.
It's much better to do one thing very well than to try and do ok with every routing protocol under the Sun.
I have some complaints about Cisco.
1) Cost. We could buy NEW HP layer 2 switches for the price of refurb/used Cisco l2 switches. And the HP kit comes with a product lifetime warranty.
2) Support cost. We're planning to replace our Cisco 12000 GSRs with Foundry or Juniper stuff. The maintenance contract cost alone justifies trashing the old equipment and buying new. WTF?
3) IOS/CatOS variety Ever read a nightmarish vulnerability alert and had to figure out if it applied to you? And if so, what you need to upgrade to? There are THOUSANDS of versions, most of which are described generically. And at least once I've been told that a fix was backported, so the version number didn't increment.
4) Usability - HP kicks their asses at the access switch level. It is much easier to set up a bunch of inter-tied VLANS. The syntax is clearer and cleaner. I think every config I've tried to do is easier on the HP family. We updated a bunch of equipment all at once, mostly one model (HP2524, with a few HP4108gl's). It may be that other members of the product line are lame.
I will grant that Cisco tech support is good, and their stuff is good. But there are definitely elements of "We're No. 1, so open your wallet"
ANYTIME you have a project that uses any software that can be bought in a box set, always buy from the project. Your employer, customer or grandma will not scoff at the tens and tens of dollars that you give to these guys to help them out.
Hell, even if you spark up a mailserver in a pinch using downloaded ISOs, always go back and buy the damned box set later on. Make it a line item on your bill, include it in the budget, do whatever you have to do.
I have purchaced a fair amount of packaged CD sets from Slackware, OpenBSD, Redhat, Debian, etc. and have never spent a single dime of my own money.
-ft
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
The proportions will change in near future, when PCI-Express based server mainboards will become more widespread. PCI-Express is a switched mesh of serial-transmission full-duplex point-to-point links. A chipset with 20 lanes (each with 2,5 Gb/s up- and downstream raw-bandwith) and e. g. four 10 GbE-NICs (in x4-Slots) could outperform the 24-Port GbE-router in theory.
Small routers with PCIe and standard hardware running OpenBSD can be a cheap alternative to expensive proprietary Cisco-boxes imho.
Well, I happen to do all the WAN routing for a fairly decent sized university, and our total aggregate Internet bandwidth is still just under 100Mb/sec.
However, we are multihomed, so BGP is necessary. Not to mention, we're about to start needing some cheap routers to provide access to some community colleges and K-12 type schools, who will be required to run BGP.
OpenBGPD on a high end PC would be a more cost effictive solution than going out and buying another Cisco 7206 for these implementations.
Ohhh! My modem goes 0.000049 Gbps!!!
So Windows and Linux are gaining share, as was said--and BSD gained a little. But it's still not growing as fast, and thus is losing "market share," as if you can believe what OS servers report (it is good security practice to report an OS other than what you actually run).
What are you babbling. If you don't know what "market share" means, go look it up.
Gaining share and gaining *market share* are exactly the same thing. Period.
And what do you think, that Netcraft determined which OS people run by making phonecalls?... :-D
Heh... GNU zealots. Spreading FUD, exactly like the corporations they hate so much. :)
Luckily, you're too lame even to do that.
And you can't put more than a handful of network cards in even the largest BSD-capable server--there simply aren't the expansion slots.
Have you not played with many Alpha's or Sun's or other server class gear?
Shit loads of PCI slots. Fucking shit loads. If you want them you can find them. Even ones that will run your favorite BSD.
That's the BSD Way, as far as I have seen. To do one thing and do it very well, and only add more functionality if people really want/need it.
Look at the BSD tools versus GNU tools. They do fundamentally the same things, but GNU tools are usually tens of times larger because they do lots of things only one or two people alive would want. This means those one or two people find GNU tools more convenient, while the rest of us like being able to compile the whole *BSD world in 1 hour on a slow machine, where a GNU-based system takes an hour to compile JUST glibc on the same hardware.
In the running system, GNU tools are handier, since they have more modern defaults, more convenient shortcuts to doing things (default of . for find(1), default output of stdout instead of the tape device for tar, and so on), etc. but the BSD tools are usually a load easier to know the full functionality of. Look at BSD indent versus GNU indent (which is a fork of BSD indent). The latter has every feature under the sun, many of which never will be used. The former hasn't changed much in years and still does what it always did well, nobody complains. The latter can be more convenient, but at the cost of code size, sometimes even cleanliness... no thanks.
But yeah, that's my point. The BSDs focus on the functionality something is meant for, and do it as cleanly as possible. The 'other' software doesn't have this focus. Which you consider 'better' is all about your priorities I suppose.
Sam ty sig.
Heh, permit me a frivolous comment on the "BSD way": as Rob Pike put it, "cat came back from Berkeley waving flags."
They're unstable, incompatible, bloated, insecure, and quite importantly, virally bound to the GPL, which is most definately contrary to the BSD philosophy. PF was created (mainly) because the license was not acceptable.
To fix inherent problems, you almost always have to fork because of the incompatibilities. Plus, what advantage would it provide over starting from scratch? They're already screwed in the license department, since it's GPL'd.
What would you rather do... Build a house from the ground up, or take someone's completely trashed and poorly built house, and try to repair the entire thing? Often times, starting from scratch is the better option.
To you, but you aren't among the developers, so you get no say. They wanted something for BSD, just like they did with OpenSSH, just like they did with OpenNTPD, and PF.
If someone wants to put the effort into porting it, they can. If you want to import much of the code into Quagga, go right ahead. They see no benefit from doing that, though plenty of drawbacks for them, so they didn't do things that way.
<LICENSE_RANT>
I'd like to remind people that nothing has ever become a standard, with a GPL license attached to it. Things like TCP/IP, NFS, FTP, SMTP, DNS, all BSD (or even less restrictive) licensed, so others could actually use it, without having to sign the restrictive license that is the GPL. If nothing else, being BSD-licensed may give OpenBGPd a big audience of companies looking to integrate it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
.-.--
>I think some people believe it. :)
They should get a clue then!
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (June 2004)
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (June 2004)
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project (June 2004)
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (June 2004)
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."
checkout distrowatch.com. FBSD is sure getting a helluva lot of attention
OpenBGPD/OpenBSD is good for ISPs of all sizes and has been tested with hundreds of peers. Your only real limitation is the hardware you use. A proper server with fast CPU (think amd64 and *not* Intel), good buses, multiple PCI buses (or better yet, PCI-E), good NICs and good memory bandwidth (amd64 again) can route a hell of a lot of traffic.
> Every Zaurus owner I know runs OpenZaurus instead
> of the Sharp software
No offense, but I think this says a lot more about you (and the kind of people you hang out with) than it does about OpenZaurus. My guess is that these people bought the Zaurus with the intention of installing OpenZaurus, rather than buying the Zaurus, and then deciding to install a different OS.
I'd bet money that the average Zaurus user doesn't use OpenZaurus. However, this isn't to say it's not a great OS, or very successful as you've mentioned. It just means that you can't base statistics on a limited group of people, especially when they're are nerds (no offense intended--I consider myself a nerd).
-Dan
Henning says it's planned, he's probably going for
OSPF first.
As usual: shut up and hack
(ie. they won't talk before it at least sort of
works, and you ought to help them, instead of
demanding in public fora.)
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
> I wonder, then: where is the market for this....?
For example, RR clients (mostly in transit AS's).
I think gated does RIP only.