On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 10:19:51AM -0600, Peter Schultz wrote: > On Dec 28, 2004, at 7:56 PM, George V. Neville-Neil wrote: > >At Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:59:29 -0800, > >Brooks Davis wrote: > >> > >>[1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>] > >>[cc'ing doc since I think this is really a doc issue. Please trim > >>your > >>reply list as needed] > >> > > > >Sorry to chime in late on this. I suspect the assertion about FreeBSD > >and building a router does have to do with complete RFC compliance. > >As Brooks pointed out, no router ever built actually complied with all > >the RFCs. > > I got into FreeBSD starting with release 3.2, and I remember reading > and asking about this then. The answer I got was not as explanatory, > it was more like, "FreeBSD routing works great, get 'er done!" How > about changing it around to put FreeBSD in a more positive light: > > FreeBSD is a highly reliable solution for your routing needs. > However, configured in this way, it does not completely comply > with the Internet standard requirements for routers. The fact is, > these same standards are not implemented by dedicated routing > hardware either, and not only that, but it would be unwise to > implement some of them. > > Or something like that, so that people don't jump to the conclusion > that FreeBSD is behind the times or somehow inferior. The offending paragraph has been taken out and shot. If someone find a real issue we will document it, but until then, the warning serves not purpose. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:25 UTC