[dev] Conditions to have code accepted into the project

Albert López alopez at ac.upc.edu
Tue Feb 5 07:00:01 EST 2019

Our implementation have an initial support of netconf to configure the 
deamon. It would be acceptable to have our daemon (Apache 2) configured 
through FRR using netconf?
As an initial step our intention is only support LISP MS/MR (only 
control plane functionalities)

Best regards


On 11/1/19 14:17, Renato Westphal wrote:
> Yes, that would be possible with some effort, but it would solve only
> part of the problem. In addition to the CLI, all of ours plugins
> (confd, sysrepo, snmp, zmq, etc) are integrated with the FRR main
> event loop, so using anything else would be complicated (impossible
> isn't the right word here). And the effort to convert a new daemon to
> use the FRR event library should be much smaller than adapting FRR to
> accommodate different event libraries.
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:23 AM Donald Sharp
> <sharpd at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> Renato -
>> If they just stuck to the encode/decode functions, and used
>> non-blocking i/o wouldn't that just `work`?
>> donald
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:13 AM Renato Westphal
>> <renato at opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
>>> Exciting news, a LISP implementation in FRR would be amazing!
>>> Regarding your questions, here are my two cents:
>>> * FRR's CLI and zclient code are tightly coupled to the FRR event loop
>>> (lib/thread.[ch]), and this essentially makes it impossible for a
>>> daemon to use a different event loop. ldpd and nhrpd used libevent and
>>> libev, respectively, and both had to be converted to use FRR's event
>>> library.
>>> * Not using FRR's memory management should be fine (ldpd doesn't use
>>> it for instance, and other daemons use it only partially).
>>> * Our documentation says the Apache 2.0 and GPLv2 licenses are
>>> incompatible [1] unfortunately. Maybe JR and David can provide you
>>> guidance on how to solve this problem.
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Renato.
>>> [1] http://docs.frrouting.org/projects/dev-guide/en/latest/workflow.html#license-for-contributions
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:39 AM Donald Sharp
>>> <sharpd at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>> Albert -
>>>> If you already have your own infrastructure there is no need to use
>>>> ours.  I think the only real requirement is the usage of our ZAPI
>>>> protocol for talking to the RIB(zebra).  This is especially true if
>>>> there is going to be active ongoing maintenance from your end.
>>>> As for licensing I've added JR and David who are both better than me
>>>> on licensing and their implications.  I'll let them speak up.
>>>> donald
>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 5:31 AM Albert López <alopez at ac.upc.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> We have an implementation of the LISP protocol and we are evaluating how
>>>>> easy would be to adapt it to be integrated in the FRRouting project. Our
>>>>> initial code has its own memory management, timers (task scheduling),
>>>>> ... In order to know how much of the code can be reused, I would like to
>>>>> know if it is really mandatory to use the memory management library
>>>>> provided by the FRRouting project or the task scheduling (for instance
>>>>> to send periodic control messages) to have the code accepted and merged
>>>>> in the FRRRouting project.
>>>>> Another question we have is that our code is licensed under Apache 2. Is
>>>>> FRRouting license compatible with apache 2 ? I believe yes but I am not
>>>>> sure.
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Albert López
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dev mailing list
>>>>> dev at lists.frrouting.org
>>>>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev mailing list
>>>> dev at lists.frrouting.org
>>>> https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
>>> --
>>> Renato Westphal

More information about the dev mailing list