Bill Fenner wrote:
I think it would be a good idea if we de-orbit /usr/sbin/mrouted in
7-CURRENT.
Do it. Maybe consider making a port if anyone cares to continue to
use it. (Gee, I suppose I could do that part ;-)
I count +3 votes in favour. As soon as I get some spare cycles (juggli
>I think it would be a good idea if we de-orbit /usr/sbin/mrouted in
>7-CURRENT.
Do it. Maybe consider making a port if anyone cares to continue to
use it. (Gee, I suppose I could do that part ;-)
Bill
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http
John Hay wrote:
Well what is there to do ipv4 multicast routing then? For ipv6 I have
been using the net/mcast-tools package with pim6sd and pim6dd, but it
seems that we are a bit thin in the ipv4 field... net/xorp maybe,
although it looks like an overkill... I haven't tried it myself though.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:55:29AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it would be a good idea if we de-orbit /usr/sbin/mrouted in
> 7-CURRENT. Several reasons:
>
> 1. DVMRP is not specified for any new multicast installations; PIM is
> the de-facto standard now.
> 2. The code gener
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be a good idea if we de-orbit /usr/sbin/mrouted in
7-CURRENT. Several reasons:
1. DVMRP is not specified for any new multicast installations; PIM is
the de-facto standard now.
2. The code generates warnings during a buildworld (see bin/71633)
3. G
Hi,
I think it would be a good idea if we de-orbit /usr/sbin/mrouted in
7-CURRENT. Several reasons:
1. DVMRP is not specified for any new multicast installations; PIM is
the de-facto standard now.
2. The code generates warnings during a buildworld (see bin/71633)
3. Given point (1) it probab
