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