I think you would be suprised at the number of commercial networking
vendors that use GateD source code as the basis for their routing
protocol suite...
Scott
And if they're going to sell products based on gated, they should be
paying royalties to the Gated Consortium...but why should the average ISP
that wants to try some of the features of gated 4.x be forced to put down
a big chunk of change? Many ISPs will have the attitude "if I have to
spend X on gated, and still pay for the hardware and figure out the
software, I'll just hand the money to Cisco and have one company to point
fingers at if it doesn't work or breaks."
Actually, I'll just use 3.5.9 and point my corporate fingers at MERIT if it
doesn't work, or breaks. Further, if I have run-rime problems I may point
legal fingers that way, as well. Flemming *has* a point, since GateD is NSF
funded, it shouldn't be for-profit. I guarantee that my tax dollars are
already paying for it. Why should I pay extra?
There is ONLY (ONLY) two well-debugged and wideworld checked router
implementation now - first is CISCO IOS, second is GATED.
First is checked over million CISCOs, second was
checked
by MERIT's back-bone, by a lot of ISP who used gated for their host-based
routers, and now by those vendors who implemented gated into their
routers. I do not think it's an excellent product (through nothing is
excellent in the Internet), but in comparation to the other
implementation it's out of competition for now (remember a lot of
Internet bums caused by Wellfleet? RIP broadcast storms over the
inter-sea links caused by Annex? And so on...).
Through the world is changed every day.
However how would you like NSF to require larger funding then they already
get because gated goes for free.
cjm
I agree with Alex. People don't seem to realize that GateD
ran the NFSNET backbone for years. Now, the key difference is
that was the Cornell version and now we have Merit enhancements
and fixes some of which are quite important. The Cornell version
is free, though I know there are bugs in it those bugs are
documented.
Some of the bugs are not *really* bugs -- most notorious to me is
the issue of OSPF restart (change your BGP policy, HUP GateD and
watch
your entire OSPF cloud lurch under LSDB recalculate because one
router
restarted OSPF). Merit fixed GateD to avoid this problem by
redoing the OSPF code. That work was funded by the GateD
Consortium, which is where your $10k goes.
So take your choice: Cornell Gated for free with some fixes over
what ran the NSFNET, or Merit GateD with some real improvements
for pay unless you get a research license to play with it.
Dana Hudes
Graphnet
Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
Hi,
I would like to clarify that GateD worked on totally different NSFNET
backbone. What used to be NSFNET backbone now could be compared to
'Net edges in terms of traffic, number of routes and complexity of
policies. That doesn't say that GateD wouldn't work in today's backbone
at all. Probably there will be some problems if you run it as-is in the
core.
Many start-ups are working on scaling and shaping GateD as well as
some other off-the-shelf IP stacks. And we shall see who'll successed.
alex@Relcom.EU.net (Alex P. Rudnev) writes:
There is ONLY (ONLY) two well-debugged and wideworld checked router
implementation now - first is CISCO IOS, second is GATED.
I'd like to take some small issue with that statement.
Well debugged??? ROTFL
Tony
dhudes@graphnet.com (Mr. Dana Hudes) writes:
I agree with Alex. People don't seem to realize that GateD
ran the NFSNET backbone for years.
People need to recall the difference between rcp_routed and gated.
Tony
Eh? I worked on the end of the NSFNET project at Advantis.
ANS always had their own GateD to insert on the NSS so the build
of AIX we sent did not include GateD. But, perhaps one of the ANS
folks such as Curtis V. who are around can provide
authoritative statement.
Tony Li wrote:
Well debugged??? ROTFL
well, all us vic^h^h^hcustomers have been debugging this <bleep> for a
decade. maybe if you paid us more we would do a better job.
randy