×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

241 comments

dead (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764545)

more like its dead

Re:dead (2, Funny)

mdew (651926) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764565)

atleast theres some humor shown here by slashdot staff :)

Re:dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764635)

I think some people believe it.

FireFox 1.0 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764550)

Who cares! FireFox 1.0 is out!

Re:FireFox 1.0 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764690)

Usually, a 1.0 release is reserved for when you have a product which is largely usable. Firefox still sucks. It is a disgrace to the OpenSource community in general and the Mozilla Foundation in particular.

Feed the trolls, make them sick (0, Offtopic)

poohsuntzu (753886) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764808)

Sucks? Odd, it has never onced crashed for me in Windows, Linux, or OpenBSD.

In fact I've even had the following plugins work without hassle nor error: flash, quicktime, realmedia, wmv, mid, and so forth. And unless you are either A.) behind in internet news regarding programs you use or B.) only have an internet connection ever few months, then the plugins created by 3rd parties (such as tab prefernces and all-in-one mouse gestures) won't cause you conflicts.

It renders CSS1 and CSS2 with a lethal whip of strictness, much like how it handles HTML. Not to mention that if you have -ever- even seen the source code, you will notice how streamlined it is compared to most other browsers on the web. You're blowing hot air and spreading FUD, without research.

Chances are, you are one of the people who stopped using Windows because "it was buggy", but never took the time to figure out why it was crashing on you and not the people who have had amazing, bug-free experiences with it. Or, you could be the Windows zealot who refuses to use Linux because you won't take the time to learn the interface, and thus choose to whine about how "unfriendly" it is, when in fact it's only different.

Anonymous Cowards... got to love the spineless bastards in the world.

BSD License (4, Insightful)

secolactico (519805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764558)

Lucky for everyone else, a BSD license will make it easy to implement in every other router box and make it cheap. Or so I hope.

Re:BSD License (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764568)

And also in Linux.

Re:BSD License (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764860)

GPL people are welcome to import BSD code: actually, they really should do it. [slashdot.org]
Of course, provided they learn to give proper credits. [feyrer.de]

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765073)

That last link is interesting, because it looks like the author of g4u is on crack. Piping the output of dd through gzip and upto an FTP site as a means of backing up your data is hardly fucking rocket science. The scripts are totally different; the g4l scripts are longer and more complicated. The g4u author totally ignores parts of g4l where apparently the author made the code worse by implicitly removing parts E.g. g4l has

ftp -o "|gunzip -c -|dd bs=1M of=/dev/$disk" ftp://$user:$password@$server/$imgpath/$image

Notice the lack of braces around the variables. The g4u author had it right though; he encloses his variables to avoid dodgy expansion problems. Why the hell would the g4l author go to the trouble of copying someone elses working code and then intentionally introduce a bug like that?

The g4u author is full of himself. Writes a simple little shell script and then gets huffy when the realisation that what he did wasn't that clever hits him. What a fucking ass.

Re:BSD License (0)

j.a.mcguire (551738) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764623)

imagine if there was a security hole found in the open source which comes with OpenBSD that then translated into one of the embedded routers.

eep!

Re:BSD License (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764649)

imagine if there was a security hole found in OpenBSD.

eep!

Re:BSD License (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764651)

a remote security hole in OpenBSD ?

Re:BSD License (5, Insightful)

BJH (11355) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764730)

As opposed to a security hole in a closed-source router... like a Cisco [cisco.com] ?

A default username/password pair is present in all releases of the Wireless LAN Solution Engine (WLSE) and Hosting Solution Engine (HSE) software. A user who logs in using this username has complete control of the device. This username cannot be disabled. There is no workaround.

Golly, if you had the source, you might be able to do something like... hmmm... I dunno... disable the default password, maybe?

Re:BSD License (1, Troll)

Moskit (32486) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764833)

Golly, if you had the source, you might be able to do something like... hmmm... I dunno... disable the default password, maybe?

Golly, if you bothered to actually read the advisory, you would have found the sections "Software Versions and Fixes" and "Obtaining Fixed Software".

While Cisco is closed source, at least they do publish (as in "make public") security advisories and provide quality tested and verified fixes.

In "open source" world you would probably have had N fixes from X different people, each claiming that theirs is the best. If you want to see a real open source mess, check out Zaurus - just as an example there is a large number of libSDL ports, each different, each having different problems, each compatible with different games, none fully usable.

"Open Source" has become nowadays a real(tm) marketing term. In many cases it just demonstrates theoretical possibilities of doing something, not the reality. It is just like those TV Sell channels when they say "our EZkook enables you to prepare thousands of fantastic meals!", everybody drools, but a tiny portion of buyers actually ever uses the tool for something more than mashed potatoes. Still, they get excited thinking about the possibilities...

Re:BSD License (4, Informative)

OttoM (467655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765021)

In "open source" world you would probably have had N fixes from X different people, each claiming that theirs is the best. If you want to see a real open source mess, check out Zaurus - just as an example there is a large number of libSDL ports, each different, each having different problems, each compatible with different games, none fully usable.

This is not how OpenBSD works. There's only one place for official errata [openbsd.org] , and these patches are published only after carefull scrutiny.

While you may be right for some Open Source projects, the OpenBSD team applies sound engineering techniques.

Re:BSD License (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765099)

In "open source" world you would probably have had N fixes from X different people, each claiming that theirs is the best.

You need to stop thinking in the low-quality terms that Linux has taught you. The BSDs are actually Open Source _and_ high quality.

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765281)

In "open source" world you would probably have had N fixes from X different people, each claiming that theirs is the best.

And in a business context, it wouldn't matter, because you'd be either buying from a vendor that supplied their own fixes, or you would have your own staff on hand to determine the correct fix.

Re:BSD License (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765865)

> As opposed to a security hole in a closed-source router... like a Cisco?

At least Cisco does not change the definition of "security hole" each time one is found on their routers. ;-)

Re:BSD License (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764791)

The hole would be secured much faster than the bugs lurking in the proprietary implementations.

On top of that, BGPd is far from being your average daemon, it only needs to talk to predefined peers with which you need to have a relationship (often in the form of a written contrat).

OpenBGPd has some stuff in place that allows for easy implementation of the crypto enabled BGP sessions. So if you implement authentified peering you could only be crashed by one of your peers, who usually have better things to do.

Re:BSD License (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765519)

This kind of trust relationship is exactly why routers are an interesting target for 'crackers'. They are trusted by especially border routers of other parties, and those happen to be ideal places for mountign man in the middle attacks.

THe fact that a service is only available to selected peers is in no way a guarantee that you are going to have less trouble with it security wise.

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765754)

Or just take the BSD licence right off the code and put on a GPL.

Like the Linux 2.0.36 kernel's hunk of network code.
Like the ATA code.
And the G4U code.
(or the short lived OpenBSD "clone")

Re:BSD License (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765870)

Lucky for everyone else, a BSD license will make it easy to implement in every other router box and make it cheap
As opposed to a GPL license, which would make it easy to implement in every other router box and make it cheap.

BDS (0)

pagal_paanda (824030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764569)

Lets wait and see how many companies actually incorporates it.

Re:BDS (1)

shis-ka-bob (595298) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765491)

Who cares about BDS, I want to see how many more will start to use BSD. (sorry, it was cheap shot, but you ought to be able to spell a TLA.) If you count OS/X as a BSD, BSD is widely on desktops. It is also widely used as a server platform, even by Microsoft's Hot Mail. All three (Free/Net/Open) of the BSDs have been used in embedded systems (e.g. http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/embed.html)

I'm guessing that the combination of OpenBGPD, OpenVPN, OpenSSH and Asterisk (running on BSD) are going to be a real challenge for Cisco, at least in the home and small to medium business markets. Don't forget that this is the very same team that brough us OpenSSH, which is now so widely used as to be ubiquitous. The convergence of wireless, broadband and VOIP need a flexible router/firewall appliance. Especially now that chip makers (VIA and whatever Motorola is calling its chip division ) are adding RNGs and 'on chip gigabit/sec ethernet' (respectively), it seems like you can build a formidable router with the form factor and power consumption of your typical Linksys home router. For this market, BSD is a natural choice for any manufacture with cold feet about basing a product on GPLed software.

Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Market (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764572)

Unfortuantely, even the fanciest boxes running BSD can't complete on a pure throughput basis with good Cisco routers. An twenty-four port gigabit Cisco router has a 48 Gbps backplane, but a PC running BSD will be limited by its bus--the fastest servers have a 64 bit 133 MHz bus with PCI-X. That's 8 Gbps. And you can't put more than a handful of network cards in even the largest BSD-capable server--there simply aren't the expansion slots. So this really couldn't be used for core Internet routers.

And, of course, you don't need to be running BGP on small networks--it's only when you've got a number of large networks joined together, at a chokepoint, where you need to use BGP to properly route traffic. So there's no point to it for small businesses with who might be trying to save money over a Cisco router--they don't need BRP.

I wonder, then: where is the market for this....?

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (5, Insightful)

matthew.thompson (44814) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764594)

Just because it's BSD doesn't mean that it's going to be limited to PC Architecture.

This project could give a boost to manufacturers of competing kit by having a code base that it doesn't have to start from scratch and can be run on a minimal BSD distribution.

There's nothing to stop A.N.Other manufacturer creating their own arcitecture and running this ontop.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764600)

- Education
- Experimentation
- Small ISPs that cannot afford cisco
- Competition is good
- etc. etc.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (4, Insightful)

dmiller (581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764613)

Many, many sites use BGP at less that 8Gbps aggregate throughput - hell I know of several sites that still run partial feeds over ISDN BRI. I just don't see where you get the idea that BGP is only for core routers.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (4, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764615)

>I wonder, then: where is the market for this....?

Perhaps when hackers start using the vulnerabilities in the BGP protocol to attack the Internet and those vulnerabilities are not found to be present or are fixed faster in the open BSD code, that'll justify the project's existence.

I mean we've already seen that open-source has fewer vulnerabilites than closed-source in general (Think I.I.S. vs Apache), so this will just become another way to secure the Internet.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (3, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765727)

The only justification for the project existence are exchange points and load balancing. The reason is that neither of these requires any IGP.

BGP by itself is meaningless. You need at least OSPF for a small network and ISIS for a large one to be able to use it and you need them in a form where the BGP knows everything about an OSPF or ISIS route.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (1)

joelby (800301) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764633)

BGP provides a reasonable way for organisations with backup links to an ISP to manage automatic failover. At ADSL speeds a PC is more than adequate and quite a lot cheaper than a Cisco 1700 series router with ADSL and ISDN WICs.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (1)

chadm1967 (144897) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764678)

"Unfortuantely, even the fanciest boxes running BSD can't complete on a pure throughput basis with good Cisco routers."

I disagree. It may not run quite as well (very close, though) but the price difference will be astounding!

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (4, Interesting)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764716)

Unfortuantely, even the fanciest boxes running BSD can't complete on a pure throughput basis with good Cisco routers. An twenty-four port gigabit Cisco router has a 48 Gbps backplane, but a PC running BSD will be limited by its bus--the fastest servers have a 64 bit 133 MHz bus with PCI-X. That's 8 Gbps. And you can't put more than a handful of network cards in even the largest BSD-capable server--there simply aren't the expansion slots.
Most server motherboards support multiple PCI buses. At present there are usually either two or three and only one is 64/133; but in a few years I can easily see that changing as PCI bus speeds double yet again. There are already four-port ethernet NICs out there.

Right now, you're absolutely right: doing this in a PC would cost as much as or more than a dedicated solution, especially when you factor in the infamous TCO. And as you say later, small networks have no need for this sort of thing. But again, in a few years it may be affordable to do this on commodity hardware. Once the enormous cost of big iron from Cisco et al. comes down, I think a lot of those small networks might just find needs. Especially if we get into the much-touted Internet of the Future where everything has an IP address.

That's the stupidest argument ever (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764753)

You *always* hear this when someone mentions using a PC as a router "Oh, PCs are too slow to route multi-gigabyte connections, Cisco are far better".


Yes, and a Boeing 747 can carry a hell of a lot more passengers than a Citroen CX. Guess which one is most cost-effective and works best for a 40-mile commute?

Re:That's the stupidest argument ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765187)

The Boeing ofcourse! Anyday! Only beated by the Concorde which even does parking right into your very room you reserved at your hotel! Beat that with your stupid CX!

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (1)

webbear (829520) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764778)

A handful of these: http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products /pro1000mt_quad_server_adapter.htm makes a pretty cool BSD router from any server. Sure the throughput on a Cisco is alot higher, but so is the price, and as others said, there are many sites that need BGP but don't need more than 8 gbps throughput.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764828)

Unless I'm hugely mistaken, Juniper started their (very successful) line of routers on what beared only little difference with a beefed up PC.

If you find a market for a BGP capable router cheaper than the ones sold by Cisco, you can probably afford to spend some time designing an architecture which will accomodate a lot of traffic.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (3, Interesting)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764832)

I agree with you on throughput limitations. But lets look at some facts. The second biggest router company manages there rotuers with a BSD kernel (Juniper) and runs the routing bits in that kernel (with hooks to move everything into hardware once the desision is made) PC's make good general purpose routing procs they make poor packet shufflers if you take a felable platform with a lot of headroom you can make a great administrative box and if it's coupled with a good hardware asic to push packets it can scale.

Now small networks need BGP as well. It's the best way to have multiple redundant links to providers while running servers beyond mail. I have a small pile of clients some as small as a couple T1's running BGP between two providers.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (2, Informative)

SorcererX (818515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765169)

there's always 8x PCI-E for transfering lots of data. That'd give you 20 Gbit in each direction. 16x PCI-E NICs and even 32x PCI-E NICs should be available in a not so distant future.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765380)

Actually, if you look at the architecture of a Juniper Networks router, it is based on FreeBSD. The Routing Engine is a merely a normal PC motherboard running the Free BSD kernel and Juniper code to handle the routing protocols and system management. There are custom-built ASICs in the Packet Forwarding Engines that handle the packet processing. This architecture has proven to easily out perform the old monolithic architecture of Cisco.

Yes, a higher-end Cisco probably out performs my laptop running OpenBSD and OpenBGPD, but my laptop wasn't designed to be a high-end router.

Re:Throughput, Expansion Slots, Network Size, Mark (4, Interesting)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765623)

So this really couldn't be used for core Internet routers.

Well, I believe that core Internet routers are about 1% of global router market, the rest of them rarely sees more than 100Mbit combined throughput on all WAN ports.

So, several good managed switches and couple of redundant routers on OpenBGPD would serve well over 90% of the market.

Robert

8gbits is quite a lot (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765853)

It wasn't that long ago that you would have to spend $100,000 to get a SWITCH (not a router, just a switch) that could sustain a gigabit of traffic. Now you can do it for a couple thousand on generic PC hardware. Not bad if you ask me. Outside of academia and large corporate networks, there aren't many folks pushing 8gigabits of traffic around anyway so I don't see that as a limiting factor for many individuals and small-mid sized companies.

Cheers,

nice (4, Interesting)

zozzi (576178) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764574)

I've been to the presentation of this @ Karlsruhe. From the looks of it, it looks really really well designed with a great K.I.S.S. principle all the way. Nice clean separation of userspace/kernel space and a real simple config file. I would give it a shot!

Zebra (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764588)

How does this stack up with Zebra [2y.net] ?

"BSD is dyning" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764592)

If BSD dies, there is less choice. BSD was a very good thing with a more liberal license. Some Linux folks seem to like BSD declining, maybe because it is so liberal.

To me Linux has almost no technological advantages to BSD. It is just more common, there are more drivers available and there are distros. This line of arguments reminds me of Windows or DOS users.

Re:"BSD is dyning" (-1, Offtopic)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764708)

I am primarily a Linux user and do not want to see BSD die. I think more choice is better. I do think some Linux users are like football fans. They cheer for their team and do take pleasure when bad things happen to the other team.

Re:"BSD is dyning" (4, Interesting)

setagllib (753300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765206)

Pretty much. It's the same there too. Everyone wants their project to do better.

The truth is, Linux and BSD are meant to coexist, but not for the same purposes. BSDs are meant as code bases that serve purposes really very well, cleanly and with dedication. They won't just accept "any patch that compiles" as has happened in Linux a lot. They're mostly there for the developers' ideas and needs, and usually users end up with the same needs.

On the other hand, Linux is meant to be the kernel for everyone, and this seems to be the case. It runs on just about everything (even if not in the mainline kernel) and it runs pretty well for the most part. The code base is not clean, but it is functional, which is what matters scientifically. It gets contribution from unspeakable numbers of developers and research and this shows - it has something it does much better than every other system (but yes, every other system has at least one thing it does much better than Linux).

Right now I run NetBSD because I wanted production machines I could stake my life on (still living). I use Linux on my laptop mostly because it has an NVidia card for which NetBSD drivers don't exist (or at least aren't easily downloadable :)). I like Linux, it performs really well. But I don't like that it's pretty dirty and hackish, which is certainly enough to put me off it. I get the same technical advantages with NetBSD but cleaner and with less maintainance (Good Thing).

Matter of opinion though. These things change. Hell I dropped FreeBSD (see tag) after a long time of worshipping it, just because 5.3 has too many regressions to appeal to me.

Doesn't compile on Linux (3, Informative)

quigonn (80360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764593)

Yesterday, I tried to compile OpenBGPD on Linux. Unfortunately, there is no "portable version" available (unlike OpenSSH), and the source code contains a lot of #includes and library function that are specific to (Open)BSD. That obviously doesn't help portability, and I'm a bit sad that the OpenBSD project doesn't go the portable way and makes its userland as easily compilable on other Unices as possible.

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764606)

Yeah. Now you Linux users get to feel the pain the BSD users feel for EVERY FUCKING 3RD PARTY PIECE OF SOFTWARE UNDER THE SUN written by Linux weenies.

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (4, Funny)

agent dero (680753) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764737)

What are you talking about?!

I'm running FreeBSD on the desktop, and I've only had trouble getting the following binaries to compile and run: GTK, Qt, Firefox, Java 1, Java 2, Java 5, gaim, xchat, evolution, mozilla, thunderbird, open office, koffice, gedit....garsh, I don't know what the parent poster is talking about, sheesh

.....at least xterm works! w00t!

I feel your pain. Any suggestions... (1)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764810)

...on where to find resources that will help me write portable code? What parts of the code is it that FreeBSD would normally have trouble with?

Incidentally, I think OpenBGPD is a great idea even if it never gets used in real-life situations. It's the principle of the thing really.

Re:I feel your pain. Any suggestions... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765000)

Man pages. Seriously. GNU is good about documenting their extensions, and better yet, they explain why they wrote those extensions. Usually they say things like "SVR4 had a buggy implementation, so we rewrote it to work right." Well, the GNU folks probably aren't the only ones with that idea, so you may find that other OSes have "fixed" the implementation, deviating from the de facto standard. Those are all potential trouble spots, so you should stay away from them if you can.

Another thing to be mindful of are Linuxisms, like /bin/sh being a link to /bin/bash; and, for that matter, all programs being in either /bin or /usr/bin. Everyone except Linux, more or less, puts stuff in /usr/local or /opt or God knows where else. So when writing scripts, set the interpreter as the actual interpreter: if you're using bashisms in your script, don't set the interpreter as /bin/sh. Don't put in any paths at all to the interpreter, either. Do #!/usr/bin/env bash instead, which will invoke the first bash on the caller's command line. That way you don't have to care if bash is in /bin/bash, /usr/bin/bash, /usr/local/bin/bash, or /opt/bin/bash. Or, in the case of qmail, /var/bash/bin/bash.

Re:I feel your pain. Any suggestions... (3, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765416)

You clearly have great ideas there (this is not sarcasm). You should actually tell people this. I've seen so many Linuxisms it hurts. Seeing the valiant efforts of ports/pkgsrc maintainers in trying to work around these annoying oversights is heart-breaking. Otherwise good (well, not always, but at least irreplacable software like hpoj) software ends up being very hard to get compiled and running without a lot of Makefile and script hacking.

It's not much better that people say "The X for Linux" (e.g. MPlayer) when it works just as well, sometimes better, on many other platforms, the BSDs being the closest but not only. Tip for devs: just because you wrote it on Linux doesn't mean it's FOR Linux. Linux is not the only platform that benefits from more software being written, and this should be credited. If it'll only work on POSIX-like platforms, "The X for POSIX" may sound less hype-worthy but at least it's accurate. Even so, it's better just to have "Another X" or "Yet Another X" (yacc, anyone?), since this is even more true these days, as most things people want have already been written at least once.

Open Source should be about sharing between its different platforms, not just with Linux then porting things to other systems as an afterthought. This is disgusting. Think of the quality products other systems have brought (just in this thread, for instance!) that are made properly portable because that's the Right thing to do, not out of sympathy for "those poor X users who don't have our superior layout and system calls" as Linux devs seem to take it very often.

(When I say 'X' I don't mean X11 or anything, I mean a general wildcard for any system/software name).

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (4, Informative)

dmiller (581) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764628)

Interfacing with the kernel routing table is highly platform-dependant, there is not avoiding that. Beyond this, if someone wants to make a port, most of the necessary glue can be lifted from OpenSSH's libopenbsd-compat or Darren Tucker's OpenNTPd port - someone just needs to do the work :)

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (3, Informative)

ripleymj (660610) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764798)

Not only the routing table, but I believe OpenBGPd has hooks into pf. Henning mentioned being able to filter and/or queue in the future based on labels assigned to packets in OpenBGPd. You might be able to strip that away for a portable version, but it certainly won't drop nicely into IPTables.

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764681)

Why should it ?

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764702)

unfortunately the interfacce to the kernel routing table is not standardized, so this is highly platform dependent by the nature of the problem beeing solved.

Moreover, seeing BGP as a pure userland task ist far off reality. While that is technically speaking mostly true, you need a lot of kernel support. In fact, we did modify our kernel routing table structures to linder kvm pressure and thus fit a full-mesh table (> 140000 enties) into an GENERIC kernel. You need network stack modifications for tcp md5. The ipsec integration required changes to the IPsec kernel implementation as well as isakmpd - and there's more...

So, while strictly speaking bgpd is a userland thing, you need more than that for a BGP router. OpenBSD and OpenBGPD offer this.

That said, I am in no way opposed to a portable version. Just like for OpenNTPD I won't do it tho ;) If anybody steps up and makes one, why not?

henning

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (1)

quigonn (80360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764732)

Thanks, Henning, for your insight. If I was in need for a good BGP implementation, I would probably take the challenge and do a port to Linux, but currently, I am not.

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (2, Insightful)

Cargnini (781518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764843)

we don't need Linux 8-), we have {Free,Open,Net}BSD Why someone else will need a Linux ??

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765895)

we have {Free,Open,Net}BSD Why someone else will need a Linux ??

Linux has drivers for more varied hardware than the BSD kernels have.

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (5, Insightful)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764958)

Disclaimer: I'm a FreeBSD developer, with the bias that brings.

I think it is a good choice for the OpenBSD cases. It allows development to be done at better development speed and with cleaner code than something trying to be completely portable. This makes it easier to track security and work with the code.

I'll also note that most software that is "portable" today is written using GNU autotools, which makes it, on average, less portable than software was before autoconf. Either it works at once (this happens reasonable often), or there is a significant amount of pain to make it work. Ten to fifteen years ago, there was usually some work involved, but the average was less, and it was spread out.

Separating the porting part from the initial clean codebase means that it is possible to debug them separately, and when autotools fails, it is easier to go around them.

Eivind.

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (2, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765332)

Actually, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. For one thing, it's a work in progress. For another thing, in the same way the 'pure' OpenBSD OpenSSH was as stripped and system-dependent as possible, this will be maximally secure and hardened. When you add glue to make it stick to other systems, the glue can develop holes in it. That's the harsh fact.

When this is properly out of the oven, it'll be portable (or rather will have a gluey version) and it will be great. Every project OpenBSD devs undertake is hugely successful and gets integrated into other things very quickly. OpenSSH, PF, and now this will be too. Just you watch :)

Re:Doesn't compile on Linux (1)

adamGX (795663) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765686)

Check out the xorp [xorp.org] project then, xorp includes a version of bgp and compiles on both freebsd, linux and macos.

Lucky? (-1, Redundant)

SavvyPlayer (774432) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764647)

Lucky for Cisco, BSD is dying...
How so? Being one of the primary architects of this protocol, how would the demise of an early adopter possibly be good news for Cisco?

Re:Lucky? (0)

chadm1967 (144897) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764688)

"Lucky for Cisco, BSD is dying...

How so? Being one of the primary architects of this protocol, how would the demise of an early adopter possibly be good news for Cisco?"

Man, take it easy.....I'm sure it was just a joke.

jeesh.......

For a broader knowledge see also this (0, Troll)

what about (730877) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764653)

For all of you that wants a broader view of the routing state of the art you may have a look at Zebra routing engine [zebra.org]

Re:For a broader knowledge see also this (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764684)

Hasn't Zebra been succeeded by Quagga [quagga.net] ? [quagga.net]

I ask out of curiosity more than anything else - Debian unstable and testing use Quagga instead of Zebra...

Re:For a broader knowledge see also this (3, Interesting)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764918)

Too bad that the BGP part of Quagga is actually working well and the OSPF part is dieing like hell. So personally I hope for an OpenOSPF too.
But since nobody is mentioning it... I thought GateD was a BGP routing thingie too, but I am not sure of that....

OpenBSD projects (5, Informative)

pchan- (118053) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764679)

the openbsd team has branched off quite a few projects where they saw the security and/or license was insufficient and needed to be redone.

OpenSSH [openssh.org] , who's box doesn't have this?
OpenNTPD [openntpd.org] , a network time protocol daemon and server, recently released.
OpenBGPD [openbgpd.org] , the border gateway protocol daemon.
They were pioneers in the use of stack protection software on the i386 platform (kernel and compiler), as well as privilage seperated daemons (it's in your sshd now), and randomized library linking locations.
(i think i'm missing a few, anyone care to fill them in?)

they have implemented (a far better implementation over the old one that they didn't write) their i.p. filter, PF (which has now made it into netbsd, freebsd, and hopefully linux soon enough). this includes INSANE [openbsd.org] amounts of configurability options, with integrated routing and traffic shaping.

many people grumble about how the project is run and its priorities. but we all benefit from their efforts. i think i'm going to buy a cd [openbsd.org] even though i am not an openbsd user. these sales help keep these projects going.

Re:OpenBSD projects (2, Interesting)

arcade (16638) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764717)

OpenNTPD, a network time protocol daemon and server, recently released.

From what I can gather from various NTP mailing lists, this is an SNTP-implementation, not an NTP-implementation. SNTP is just a subset of NTP, and not a fully functional NTP daemon.

If I'm not entirely mistaken, you're not allowed to join into the pool.ntp.org -pool if you're running OpenNTPD .

Hope the OpenNTPD developers will address this and make the service fully compliant.

Re:OpenBSD projects (-1, Troll)

flok (24996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765157)

Hopefully OpenBGPD is not as flawed as OpenNTP is [typepad.com] .

Re:OpenBSD projects (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765415)

Brad Knowles is an arrogant asshole, don't listen to him. Hell, he's almost as bad as Dag-Erling Smorgrav.

Re:OpenBSD projects (0)

flok (24996) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765524)

Yeah, I'm an arrogant asshole too but that doesn't mean that all I say is bullshit! (really)

Go OpenBSD! (4, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764683)

It appears that a lot of good stuff keeps coming out of OpenBSD. They truly focus on the things that matter (for them). Not gadgets or eye candy, but clean, solid, secure network implementations. Kudos again!

luckily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764743)

Luckily OpenBSD's work is "open source" and Cisco's is ever increasingly confusing and expensive.

Re:luckily (-1, Flamebait)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764830)

But since it's the BSD license, Cisco can just take it and copy it if it turns out to be better. Not trying to start a BSD vs. GPL flamewar or anything, just saying.

Re:luckily (2, Insightful)

Lifewish (724999) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765050)

And that improves internet speeds for everyone. So we all win. Kudos to the BSD team :)

Re:luckily (1)

J Isaksson (721660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765123)

You make it sound like Cisco getting better at BGP would really be a bad thing.
I for one can sincerely not see the harm.

Re:luckily (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765307)

He is referring to the article, which states that OpenBGPD could become a threat to Cisco.

Re:luckily (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765605)

And it could, not because it's better, because because Bingo Bob's Router's Inc. can have it for free, and can sell cheaper routers than Cisco. It might *also* be better, but that would just be gravy.

BSD dying ??? (0)

Cargnini (781518) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764831)

How BSD is DYING ???? *BSD are releasing BGP !!!! Firewalls, Servers, the majority web servers on world are runnig BSD How dying ?!?!?!?!?!?!

Re:BSD dying ??? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10764854)

Sigh. Where to begin...

Re:BSD dying ??? (-1, Troll)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 9 years ago | (#10764919)

They are referring to this news article:

It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Jokes (1, Offtopic)

ulib (816651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765230)

I know the slashdot staff made a joke, but since sometimes these are not obvious to everybody (among the comments there's even an AC seriously talking about BSD "declining"), it could be useful to quickly review the facts:
FreeBSD, Stealth-Growth Open Source Project [internetnews.com]
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD [netcraft.com]
"FreeBSD has dramatically increased its market penetration over the last year."

I picked the articles about FreeBSD because it's the BSD "mainstream" version, and now I'm talking about popularity. Of course this means nothing about the quality (let's remember that Windows is the "mainstream" OS... ;). In fact, NetBSD and OpenBSD are usually considered on the same level of excellence.

--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.

Re:Jokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10765450)

Yeah, it's amazing how oblivious some people are to sarcasm. If an article touting on-going improvements to BSD end with a statement, "luckily for Cisco, *BSD is dying. . ." it should be quite obvious they are taking a jab either at some Cisco FUD, or some article that was previously released about the supposed demise of BSD lol. But, alas, some people have no sense of humour I guess.

Cisco routers use PCI bus (4, Informative)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765287)



The Cisco 3600 series *does* use PCI for its bus. Those two or four or six slots on a 36xx series are good ol' PCI, they're just in a Cisco form factor, not the Wintel PCI form factor you're used to seeing. I do believe this means every NM form factor slot is a PCI - 26xx, 28xx, 36xx, 37xx, 38xx, and some other stuff all use it.

Cisco uses PCI because its a fast, competent bus, with lots of inexpensive parts due to PC volume driving chipset costs. They get more out of an 80MHz MIPS processor in a 3620 than you get out of a 1GHz Athlon because the hardware is tuned to do nothing but move packets from point A to point B.

And no children need respond ... (-1, Troll)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765336)


I find when I make simple statements of fact verifiable via a quick web search there is *always* some child about the same age as my first Usenet post who is going to jump right in and 'sk3wl' me about my lack of knowledge. If you read some stuff on Tom's Hardware this week, while I took a couple of computer architecture classes at a top twenty five engineering school while you were still in preschool do ya think it'd be to much to ask that you Google before you spew here? Danke.

Re:And no children need respond ... (1)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765369)



I misspoke and I apologize. I said 'child' when I meant 'querulous binary Linux distribution fanboy'.

BSD might be dying, but not in this century, and it's kernel will be a much prettier corpse than anything to come out of kernel.org

Re:Cisco routers use PCI bus (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765690)

1. It is PCI, but the modules do not use the standard PCI pinout and are not standard as per any of the available PCI standards (normal, mini or compact). You are correct - they use classic PCI chips. Early 36xx ethernet network modules used AMD lance, more recent ones use Intel.

2. 72xxx is also PCI, once again with a different card form factor.

3. The performance has nothing to do with tuning. It has to do with offloading heavily to cards various functions like checksumming and a lot of layer2 work.

Why not work on a current project, I dont get it (1, Troll)

mnmn (145599) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765529)

Zebra and Quagga already exist. They are supposed to provide BGP among other protocols. I just dont get why they dont join those projects to improve them rather than fork out a new one.

Improving the architecture of say Quagga will be more beneficial and probably welcome than forking out your own. It would also keep the code portable while supporting rip, ospf isis etc. I'd love to see a secure version of Quagga for OpenBSD, sounds much better than an all OpenBSD suite.

BGP on BSD is more useful for IP Anycast (1)

gaurab (219269) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765676)

For those who think that BGP is useful just on routers have some catching up to do. When doing <a href=http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0310/miller.html> IP anycast</a>, it is essential to have some kind of dynamic routing protocol working on the anycast hosts. The host constantly need to communicate their reachability to the router facing the rest of the world. If the host goes down when there's a satic route, the traffic is null routed.

Thus the resurgence in development of quagga after forking it from zebra. OpenBGPd, i am sure will have more IP anycast nodes running it then someone running it as pure edge routers.

One of the most important reason for BGP to work on host based system i

Reports of Cisco's Death... (2, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 9 years ago | (#10765885)

Lucky for Cisco, BSD is dying...

I case you really are stuck in 1987, Cisco does a couple more things than routing these days.

Why just a few weeks ago, I setup a multi-site network using Cisco switches and multiple VLAN's and I typed in the appropriate commands (yes, cryptic until you bother to learn) and it worked. No fuss, no troubleshooting, free documentation - this is why people buy Cisco..

Yes, they're market-dominant, yes, they're expensive (hint: buy refurb) and yes, they're into certifications and the like, but that doesn't make them Microsoft. Imagine if Microsoft made rock-solid products and wasn't always trying to screw the rest of the world.

Now, start setting up VOIP networks, dynamic VLAN's and fully-meshed WAN networks, stuff a dozen or more pieces in a rack, and you'll start to see that a PC with a FOSS OS isn't always the right answer.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...