22.06.2020, 13:50, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-...@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>: >> Hey, Hi Rodney, >> >> I would like to propose removal of sbin/routed and usr.sbin/route6d. > > I disagree with removal, as your analysis is flawed. Thank you for the feedback! > >> routed(8) is the daemon implementing RIPv2 routing protocol. >> route6d(8) is the daemon implementing RIPng routing protocol for IPv6. >> >> RIP [1] was one of the first protocols used in the networking. The first >> version was implemented back in 1982. > > RIPv1 was implemented in 1982, RIPv2 became RFC2453 in November 1998, and is > a current and valid IETF standard, STD56. > It was updated by RFC4822 in February 2007. > >> 1. Network landscape has changed since then. BGP, OSPF, IS-ISIS and other >> routing protocols have been created and greatly improved over years. People >> have created and adopted numerous designs leveraging OSPF/ISIS or BGP. >> RIP became obsolete a while ago as there were no competitive advantage it >> can offer. > >> "It is the oldest routing protocol used by the network industry and is >> considered by many to be inefficient or border-line obsolete." ? [2], 2009 > > RIPv2 is not obosolete, and your reference is not authoritave on what is or > is not an obsolete network protocol. Different people have different opinions :-) Let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make: RIP original design was created a long time ago. The current landscape is different: there are multiple protocols that are superset of RIP. There are multiple implementations of these protocols that are easily available. The configuration is not non-zero, but simple. Even further, more and more want their protocol daemon to have an api - and that makes implementations like goBGP extremely popular, moving people from "traditional" routing suites/daemons. With all that in mind, I see RIP popularity and usage going in only one direction. > I know of people using RIPv2 in networks. Collecting people feedback is the goal of this exercise. If there are existing users, then that's certainly a valid point in keeping the daemons in question. > >> "Today, the only reason you might run across a network running RIPv2 is >> either that the network is very old and in serious need of an upgrade or the >> network is running cheaper, consumer-grade routing hardware that can only >> support RIP" ? [3], 2016. > > Or there simply is no need for anything more complicated. RipV2 is a very > simple protocol and works fine for small networks in many settings. > >> 1.1. Nowadays the daemon name is simply misleading. Given situation >> described above, one does expect far wider functionality from the program >> named "route[6]d" than just RIP implementation. > > I'll agree the name is missleading, so change it, but removal on your false > basis is not. > >> 2. Multiple routing stacks supporting all major routing protocol including >> RIP exists these days: bird, frr, quagga. Many BGP-only designs in are >> gaining popularity, so do bgp speakers such as exabgp or gobgp. Nowadays, if >> one needs dynamic routing on the host, OSPF or BGP speaker is the choice. >> FreeBSD packages contains well-maintained ports for these. Having RIP[ng] >> speakers in base offers no advantage. > > Routing stacks? You mean routing daemons? Forcing users to install bir, frr > or quagga when all they need, or have been using for a long time is in base > ripv2 is not good for users. Routing protocol suite, routing daemons, etc.. The question that I'm trying to get an answer for is the existence of these users :-)
> >> 3. Both routed/route6d are largely unmaintained [4] and presents an >> additional attack vector. Here is the list of last non-trivial commits to >> routed/route6d: > > Whats unmaintained about code that has no need to change cause it just pretty > much works? Yep, and then you get SA 14:21 or SA 20:12. > >> sbin/routed: >> r327276 - coverity >> r317035 - rtsock fix >> r299825 - coverity >> r299822 - coverity, from netbsd >> r299821 - coverity, from netbsd >> r299784 - coverity, from netbsd >> r299771 - coverify, from netbsd >> r286347 - bugfix >> r276602 - SA14:21 patch >> r271919 - SA14:21 fix >> r215702 - logic fix, 2010 >> >> usr.sbin/route6d: >> r337500 - functional fix, 2018 >> r317035 - rtsock fix >> r311994 - coverity >> r311985 - coverity >> r299869 - coverity >> r299491 - coverity >> r270234 - link-local fix >> r243233 - functionality improvement, 2012 >> >> To summarise: RIP protocol is obsolete, implementations for newer protocols >> exists in ports, implementation in base is unmaintained. >> >> With all that in mind I propose to remove routed and route6d from base in >> FreeBSD 13. >> Timeline: >> June 5 - feedback aggregation and decision point >> July 19 - removal (proposed) >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Information_Protocol >> [2] >> https://www.globalknowledge.com/ca-en/resources/resource-library/articles/basics-of-understanding-rip/ >> [3] >> https://www.networkcomputing.com/data-centers/comparing-dynamic-routing-protocols >> [4] >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&list_id=361897&namedcmd=routed_prs >> >> /Alexander >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > -- > Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
