Is BGPd in Quagga likely to be a huge PITA? If not, I'll probably take a stab at integrating it into the GUI. If I can figure out how to build packages, anyway. (I'd prefer OpenOSPFd instead of Quagga, but that seems like a dead duck in pfSense now.) I do now need a more-capable router than what pfSense gives me, in the sense that I need to be able to run EGPs and IGPs simultaneously. -Adam
Jim Pingle <[email protected]> wrote: >On 9/15/2013 11:58 AM, Adam Thompson wrote: >> Reading the release notes for 2.1 reminded me of something... shouldn't the >> use of PBI packaging now automagically resolve the conflicts between >> OpenBGPd/OpenOSPFd and Quagga? > >Somewhat. > >The actual calls to the binaries in their respective packages use the >links in /usr/local/(s)bin/ so they still conflict since the links from >one PBI will clobber the links from another. > >If the packages were adjusted to call the binaries from their isolated >PBI dirs, then it may be OK, though since the actual binary names are >the same (e.g. bgpd) some things such as the service status may not >reflect the right status. > >Jim _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
