[122377] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BIRD vs Quagga
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Mangin)
Fri Feb 12 19:13:35 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B75DB7D.9070308@ibctech.ca>
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:12:57 +0000
To: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof15/
Has quite a few talk about Quagga/Bird as they are used as route servers =
in Europe.
For a route server use, BGP under very high number of peers, it seems =
bird now behave better than anything else.
so for "normal" use, it would seems that whatever you pick will work but =
quagga is surely the most deployed.
Thomas
On 12 Feb 2010, at 22:51, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Fried, Jason (US - Hattiesburg) wrote:
>> I was wondering what kind of experience the nanog userbase has had =
with these two packages.
>=20
> Quagga++.
>=20
> I've never tried the other.
>=20
> I use Quagga for OSPF, OSPFv3 and BGP (IPv4 and IPv6). With a bit of
> trickery, it fits in nicely with my RANCID setup, and what I like best
> is that it (mostly) follows Cisco's command convention.
>=20
> There are also very active developer and user mailing lists.
>=20
> For the most part, I wouldn't know if I was writing a config for a =
Cisco
> or for a Quagga box.
>=20
> fwiw, I've also heard good things about bgpd(8) and ospfd(8), but I
> haven't tried those either...zebra/Quagga just stuck.
>=20
> Steve
>=20
>=20
