Note that there are tests that use routed :(

tests/sys/netinet/carp.sh

Would there be any value into turning routed into a port? I don't use routed though I did in a different lifetime on a different O/S (Tru64).

In D53484#1223366, @glebius wrote:

Note that there are tests that use routed :(

oh, i missed that; i'll investigate and update the diff. thanks.

In D53484#1223413, @cy wrote:

Would there be any value into turning routed into a port? I don't use routed though I did in a different lifetime on a different O/S (Tru64).

there is already a net/freebsd-routed package, maintained by one "cy@FreeBSD.org" :-) this is mentioned in the UPDATING entry in this diff.

In D53484#1223559, @ivy wrote:

In D53484#1223366, @glebius wrote:

Note that there are tests that use routed :(

oh, i missed that; i'll investigate and update the diff. thanks.

In D53484#1223413, @cy wrote:

Would there be any value into turning routed into a port? I don't use routed though I did in a different lifetime on a different O/S (Tru64).

there is already a net/freebsd-routed package, maintained by one "cy@FreeBSD.org" :-) this is mentioned in the UPDATING entry in this diff.

<sigh>

In D53484#1223559, @ivy wrote:

In D53484#1223366, @glebius wrote:

Note that there are tests that use routed :(

oh, i missed that; i'll investigate and update the diff. thanks.

LGTM, but please fix test issue first.

Full disclosure: I was the maintainer of vendorized import of routed in FreeBSD for many years, and loosely touched the xorp_rip/xorp_ripng routing processes during tenure at ICSI and XORP, Inc.

I appreciate that deprecation and removal are probably warranted, given that RIP and RIPng are relatively dated IGPs. Moreover, I actively worked on a technology seeking to deprecate or limit the use of IGPs further in IPv6 during my PhD.

Have you upstreamed any deltas from vendor to Vernon Schryver at Rhyolite.com (historically the out-of-tree routed maintainer) before performing removal?

In D53484#1270040, @bms wrote:

Have you upstreamed any deltas from vendor to Vernon Schryver at Rhyolite.com (historically the out-of-tree routed maintainer) before performing removal?

no.

TL;DR I concur with removal.

In D53484#1270446, @ivy wrote:

In D53484#1270040, @bms wrote:

Have you upstreamed any deltas from vendor to Vernon Schryver at Rhyolite.com (historically the out-of-tree routed maintainer) before performing removal?

no.

It's not strictly necessary, but extra karma if you do. It looks like @cy is tracking that as ports/net/freebsd-routed anyway.

I wouldn't rule out RIP/RIPng entirely, as there may still be "sticking plaster" situations where they are required, but as IGPs today, they are pretty irrelevant, except as textbook academic examples of how to build a (naive, basic) IGP.

At this point in my life (not quite 50 yet), I have lost track of how many RFCs I have actually read, and how many I've implemented from scratch.

In D53484#1270635, @bms wrote:

It's not strictly necessary, but extra karma if you do. It looks like @cy is tracking that as ports/net/freebsd-routed anyway.

well, i don't care about this code or RIP in general and i have no idea who Vernon Schryver is or what sort of diffs we might want to upstream, so i don't really want to be responsible for this. if someone else would like to take on that task, the code will still be available in our git history (and in the port, as you mentioned).

I wouldn't rule out RIP/RIPng entirely, as there may still be "sticking plaster" situations where they are required

people who still require RIP can use a modern implementation, such as in the ports net/bird3 or net/frr10. as far as i'm aware these both work well on FreeBSD and have good implementations of both RIP and RIPng.

i personally don't think anyone should be using RIP anymore, but if they want to, they can continue to do so; we just don't want to support this in src anymore.

In D53484#1272094, @ivy wrote:

In D53484#1270635, @bms wrote:

It's not strictly necessary, but extra karma if you do. It looks like @cy is tracking that as ports/net/freebsd-routed anyway.

well, i don't care about this code or RIP in general and i have no idea who Vernon Schryver is or what sort of diffs we might want to upstream, so i don't really want to be responsible for this. if someone else would like to take on that task, the code will still be available in our git history (and in the port, as you mentioned).

I wouldn't rule out RIP/RIPng entirely, as there may still be "sticking plaster" situations where they are required

people who still require RIP can use a modern implementation, such as in the ports net/bird3 or net/frr10. as far as i'm aware these both work well on FreeBSD and have good implementations of both RIP and RIPng.

i personally don't think anyone should be using RIP anymore, but if they want to, they can continue to do so; we just don't want to support this in src anymore.

I think that can be divided into two points,

1. People should not use RIP anymore. I think that is not correct. I still see low end routers / l3 switches ship basic implementation of RIP / RIPng. That is an easy protocol to setup small network, without manipulating dozens of static routing entries across multiple routers / l3 switches. So why people want more complexed IGP protocols or to buy expensive routers / l3 switches those support more EGP / IGP protocols ?
2. People should not use in-tree routed(8) / route6d(8) . There're popular implementation such as bird and frr, but the setup of routed(8) and route6d(8) is quite simple compared with them. It just works solid and great. I'd prefer to keep routed(8) / route6d(8) in tree if possible.

i don't really want this review to turn into a debate over whether people should use RIP. the point is, people who do want to (and i'm aware some such people exist) can continue to do so, even using routed from ports if they really want.

@ivy any ideas how to keep tests/sys/netinet/carp.sh working without routed?

In D53484#1272636, @glebius wrote:

@ivy any ideas how to keep tests/sys/netinet/carp.sh working without routed?

no, sorry, i haven't even had a chance to look at this. (i've been busy with some IRL stuff and mostly working on more urgent things in FreeBSD, but i'll try to have a look soon.)