Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)

From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu_at_tenebras.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 17:22:58 UTC
There is an argument to be made that all such components of the "base"
system should be packages, and managed that way.  That would facilitate
removal or addition of things like MTAs, Route daemons for various
protocols, etc.  and permit them to be updated independent of the base
system.  Too much is included by default in Base.


On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:01 PM John Howie <john@thehowies.com> wrote:

> I use RIP all the time. Removing it would be a pain. What is the
> justification? Moving it to ports is an option, but now we have to compile,
> distribute, and install it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 15, 2024, at 07:40, Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:20 PM Scott <uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:49:27PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
> >>> (..)
> >>> i'd like to submit a patch to remove both of these daemons from src.
> if
> >>> there's some concern that people still want to use the BSD
> >>> implementation of routed/route6d, i'm also willing to submit a port
> such
> >>> as net/freebsd-routed containing the old code, in a similar way to how
> >>> the removal of things like window(1) and telnetd(8) were handled.
> >>
> >> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements.
> It
> >> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its
> shortcomings.
> >> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature
> sets of
> >> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'm a user, albeit a small user, of RIP and wouldn't object to
> its
> >> removal from FreeBSD if there were a small footprint alternative.  I've
> used
> >> FRR and VyOS a bit and they are overkill as replacements.
> >>
> >> Your email doesn't justify its removal other than to say you are
> unconvinced
> >> of the value of shipping it.  As a user I definitely see the value.  I
> >> understand that there is always a cost to providing code, but that
> wasn't
> >> suggested as a reason.  All APIs, modules, utilities, etc. need to
> regularly
> >> justify their presence in the OS.
> >>
> >> If it must be removed, is there any way to fork the FreeBSD routed and
> >> route6d to a port?  Or would that defeat the purpose of removing it in
> the
> >> first place?
> >
> > Yeah, where did that recent trend came to FreeBSD to remove perfectly
> > working code??
> >
> > There are more and more ideas in recent times like this.
> >
> > Architectures removal, drivers removal, backward compatibility
> > removal. While basic functions become unstable and unreliable. Looks
> > more like diversion and sabotage than progress.
> >
> > If anything is about to be moved out from SRC for a really good reason
> > it should be available in ports and not in /dev/null.
> >
>
>