I'll cherry-pick this bug to 2.0 and 3.0. Shouldn't be an issue at all. I would say 3.0 is more than stable enough. donald On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> wrote:
Hi, I got caught up with the bug below
https://github.com/donaldsharp/frr/commit/084002351fbfd6b4e2d9c4c218288b2324...
triggered by the announcement discussed here
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2017-September/092536.html
I see its not been ported to either stable branch. I am guessing its safe to apply the patch as is to both stable 2.0 and 3.0 ?
While on this topic is 3.0 considered stable enough to run in production ? Or better to stick with 2.0 ?
---Mike
-- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev