<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="font-size:large;font-weight:bold">Forwarded conversation</span><br>Subject: <b class="gmail_sendername">Bird vs Quagga revisited</b><br>------------------------<br><br><span class="undefined"><font color="#888">From: <b class="undefined">Hank Nussbacher</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hank@efes.iucc.ac.il">hank@efes.iucc.ac.il</a>></span><br>
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:19 AM<br>To: <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a><br></font><br></span><br>Sorry to disrupt the bad cabling thread, but I'd like to revisit a thread from 2 years ago. I have read over the NANOG presentations:<br>
<a href="http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Jasinska_RouteServer_N48.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nanog.org/meetings/<u></u>nanog48/presentations/Monday/<u></u>Jasinska_RouteServer_N48.pdf</a><br>
<a href="http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Filip_BIRD_final_N48.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nanog.org/meetings/<u></u>nanog48/presentations/Monday/<u></u>Filip_BIRD_final_N48.pdf</a><br>
as well as the NANOG thread:<br>
<a href="http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/123027" target="_blank">http://www.gossamer-threads.<u></u>com/lists/nanog/users/123027</a><br>
But have not found anything worthwhile on the matter over the past 2 years.<br>
<br>
Both Quagga and BIRD have developed since the comparison in 2010:<br>
<a href="http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga" target="_blank">http://savannah.nongnu.org/<u></u>news/?group=quagga</a><br>
<a href="http://bird.network.cz/?o_news" target="_blank">http://bird.network.cz/?o_news</a><br>
<br>
But has anyone performed a more recent comparsion? Does Quagga still suffer from performance issues vs BIRD? Has anyone performed an RFC conformance test to see who complies more strictly to all the various RFCs?<br>
<br>
If BIRD is so much better than Quagga why is there no instance at Oregon:<br>
<a href="http://www.routeviews.org/" target="_blank">http://www.routeviews.org/</a><br>
<br>
I also notice that BSD Router Project supports both:<br>
<a href="http://bsdrp.net/bsdrp" target="_blank">http://bsdrp.net/bsdrp</a><br>
How well do the two coexist at the same time? Any migration issues going from Quagga to BIRD? Any feedback appreciated.<br>
<br>
We now take you back to cable wars :-)<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Hank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>----------<br><span class="undefined"><font color="#888">From: <b class="undefined">Andy Davidson</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andy@nosignal.org">andy@nosignal.org</a>></span><br>Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:38 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a><br></font><br></span><br><div class="im">On 22/08/12 06:19, Hank Nussbacher wrote:<br>
> Sorry to disrupt the bad cabling thread, but I'd like to revisit a<br>
> thread from 2 years ago. I have read over the NANOG presentations:<br>
> <a href="http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Jasinska_RouteServer_N48.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Jasinska_RouteServer_N48.pdf</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Filip_BIRD_final_N48.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/presentations/Monday/Filip_BIRD_final_N48.pdf</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Much of the Quagga pain discussed openly in 2010 was related to its<br>
performance as a route-server (which in a large instance might need to<br>
converge many millions of best paths, in a multiple table setup). A<br>
route-server is more like a database which uses bgp as its interface,<br>
than it is a router. The problems that we felt as exchange operators at<br>
this time were different to the ones that people using these packages as<br>
a router felt.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Both Quagga and BIRD have developed since the comparison in 2010:<br>
> <a href="http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga" target="_blank">http://savannah.nongnu.org/news/?group=quagga</a><br>
> <a href="http://bird.network.cz/?o_news" target="_blank">http://bird.network.cz/?o_news</a><br>
<br>
</div>I'm not clear what you care about from a performance point of view -<br>
forwarding ? acting as a route-server ? collector ? BIRD is a great,<br>
super-fast route-server daemon - much "better" than typical competitors<br>
Quagga and OpenBGPd at this job. In a forwarding capacity, I do not<br>
know and I would really think that Operating system performance and<br>
environment tuning will have more to do with forwarding performance than<br>
the daemon used.<br>
<br>
I am hoping that forwarding best-practice information for Quagga<br>
eventually comes out of this project : <a href="http://opensourcerouting.org/" target="_blank">http://opensourcerouting.org/</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Andy<br>
<br>
</font></span><br></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>~ Andrew "lathama" Latham <a href="mailto:lathama@gmail.com" target="_blank">lathama@gmail.com</a> <a href="http://lathama.net" target="_blank">http://lathama.net</a> ~<br>