The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
Posted Apr 4, 2017 19:06 UTC (Tue) by jejb (subscriber, #6654)In reply to: The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting by jhoblitt
Parent article: The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
https://www.slideshare.net/apnic/freerangerouting-a-new-q...
The implied reason is that Quagga development isn't open enough and doesn't respond to community pressure (meaning the people who forked). I don't know how legitimate these reasons are.
Posted Apr 4, 2017 19:27 UTC (Tue)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (7 responses)
I don't buy that excuse for forking though. If they value openness and community involvement, why the hell would they go to the Linux Foundation?
Posted Apr 5, 2017 1:44 UTC (Wed)
by mdolan (subscriber, #104340)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2017 7:11 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (2 responses)
It's taken ye since last July to do this fork. It's been 9_ months. Ye wheedled the contact details for my manager, from a colleague of mine who happened to go a Quagga meeting at IETF last July. Then ye _PHONED MY DAMN MANAGER_. Just out of the goodness of your hearts, of course, so HPE could do their "planning".
Under whom did Quagga patch integration shrivel up? It was under _NetDEF_ - or whatever company it is that that is a front for.
Posted Apr 5, 2017 7:18 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Apr 7, 2017 16:02 UTC (Fri)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Apr 5, 2017 6:10 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (2 responses)
A huge backlog of stuff built while NetDEF effectively had the reins of Quagga. Which I believe was not entirely by accident.
There has been a high degree of politics at play here.
Posted Apr 5, 2017 21:56 UTC (Wed)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 6, 2017 4:03 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
I was mostly away then. I was busy with academic stuff from about '09 to late '14. During that period some others did most of the maintenance. The period you mention I think the primary maintainer wasn't being paid, he was over-worked, and he unfortunately didn't try to involve others (which may have been down to there not really being others to help with maintenance).
From about '12 on to late '14 someone else was primary maintainer. They were paid, through an ISC project initially, called "OpenSourceRouting". ISC had some internal issues, which led to them refocusing on core stuff. That maintainer and another ISCer, with some others, setup a non-profit tax-exempt corporate - "NetDEF" - to take over that ISC routing project in late '13.
Unfortunately, they chose to take a strategy of using control over commit access to 'encourage' corporate sponsors to sponsor them. They were also less than open to others about the fact they had some kind of commercial contracting business on the side - and the public record (the email list) is clear that they would try push such work into Quagga, even while there was a backlog of regular contributions.
I was finishing up my academic stuff in '14-'15, and contracted with them from late Sept. '14 to begin May '15. I left them because of differences on the above. From about Sept. '15 onward patch integration greatly increased. The backlog of patches was dealt with by about summer '16. Patches, whether submitted by email or bugzilla, are dealt with promptly - either integrated or returned with queries or comments.
When NetDEF lost their maintainers, they - as per other long comment - agitated for a fork behind the scenes, since about May '15. Assisted by Cumulus, who have their own agenda. They've got their fork. Now they're spreading somewhat alternative facts about what happened.
The facts are there though, in the commit history and the email lists.
Posted Apr 4, 2017 21:03 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (6 responses)
Personally, I'd switched the systems I maintained to Bird ( http://bird.network.cz/ ).
Posted Apr 5, 2017 8:40 UTC (Wed)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link]
Posted Apr 5, 2017 8:54 UTC (Wed)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (3 responses)
I made some small but fairly intrusive changes to Quagga many years ago for a research project and, as far as I remember, the code seemed basically alright to me. Not excellent but not bad either. It was fairly easy to read and to change, though with a lot of annoyingly repetitive string-parsing code for the Cisco-like configuration syntax, and quite a lot of code duplication between protocols. It looked not particularly buggy, but probably buggier than you'd like for a vital infrastructure service that talks to strangers over the internet. (E.g. there was the time when an attempt in Egypt to demonstrate that 32-bit AS numbers wouldn't break the internet broke (some of) the internet by crashing Quagga routers around the world with a buffer overflow bug, where it was trying to do clever dynamic buffer allocation and got it wrong.) (I never looked at BIRD much, but it did seem to have better abstractions that let it share a lot more code between protocols, and a less ad-hoc configuration syntax, though I don't have any practical experience to know whether its vaguely C-like filter language is nice and powerful or just becomes a horrid mess when used by network operators.)
Posted Apr 5, 2017 13:03 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Also, we try insulate all network parsing code from direct memory access, by making the parsing code interact with network supplied buffers only through a bounded buffer abstraction, which checks all access. Any unbounded access through that bounded buffer results in an emergency stop / assert. Still a security issue, but a DoS rather than arbitrary memory and remote code.
We do have some legacy bits of code doing direct pointer twiddling parsing on untrusted input, also sometimes we get contributors - who perhaps have never had the pleasure of having to scramble at unsociable hours to deal with security issues - add code with direct-pointer-twiddling parsers.
Generally though, Quagga tries to make sure all network parsing code goes through a safe, checked, bounded buffer. (Something inherited from GNU Zebra - Kunihiro Ishiguro is wise).
Posted Apr 6, 2017 4:40 UTC (Thu)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Apr 6, 2017 19:14 UTC (Thu)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link]
Posted Apr 5, 2017 15:12 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Kudos to the BIRD people.
Posted Apr 4, 2017 21:55 UTC (Tue)
by jhoblitt (subscriber, #77733)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 5, 2017 6:12 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
You may also post a patch to Bugzilla (better). If you submit patches regularly, you will be given commit access and asked to push your changes to a review branch.
Posted Apr 5, 2017 15:56 UTC (Wed)
by lsl (subscriber, #86508)
[Link]
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
What rubbish.
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting
The Linux Foundation picks up FRRouting