[dev] why fork Quagga?
Vincent Jardin
vincent.jardin at 6wind.com
Tue Apr 3 15:36:25 EDT 2018
Thanks JR.
@Carla,
It does not mean that we all agree in the "way"/"detail" things are done
with FRR since we have different visions for solving similar problems. But
what is important for contributors is to have a valorisation and
integration of their innovations in a coherent manner with the others:
accept all innovations as long as they do not hurt.
Quagga was created in 2002 because Zebra was not open enough (close in
fact) for any innovations. Quagga was successful in creating a new momentum
but after almost 15y an evolution was needed. Unfortunately this shift lead
to a fork! We did try to avoid it during almost a year, but we did fail
collectively. So based on the push and pressure of the backlogs (see JR's
email) the only exit was a fork:
- FRR name is owned by a 3rd party neutral (LF was selected),
- no money, only engineering that is focused on improving code, code rules!
I hope FRR could get more attention from more IETF folks because some
protocols are over specified, some others are under specified, some
protocols become vendor lockin. I hope to see more universities innovating
with FRR (like babeld from Université Paris Diderot), I enjoy the works
from Netdef having some people attending IETF and being involved in FRR, etc.
We see many DPDK projects around since dpdk.org was launched by 6WIND in
2013 (fd.io from Cisco over DPDK, Contrail has been ported on DPDK by
Juniper, NTT did launch lagopus) ; we see many networking orchestration and
controller projects with some wide communities (ONOS, cord, Opendaylight,
etc.) ; but there is a gap and lack of focus with routing protocols. So FRR
becoming better is a must have into this networking landscape.
Best regards,
Vincent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frrouting.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20180403/d5a5d23e/attachment.html>
More information about the dev
mailing list