0

I would like to advertise routes with RIP (either version 1 or 2). In the repositories I see three packages.

  • bird: supports IPv4 and IPv6 versions of BGP, OSPF, and RIP.
  • quagga: supports IPv4 and IPv6 version of BGP4, BGP4+, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, IS-IS, RIPv1, RIPv2, and RIPng.
  • xorp: supports IPv4 and IPv6 versions of BGP, OSPF, RIP/RIPng, IGMP/MLD and PIM-SM.

Are their advantages or disadvantages to one package over the others in terms of simplicity of use, stability, continued development.

Improve this question
2
  • Depends on what you want. I left the net eng game a few years ago, but used Quagga heavily for my labs and route-servers. I loved how the config was very much akin to a Cisco config, and had nearly full blown v6 support which I was heavily into at the time. It also has (had?) ISIS support. It boils down to what you need. I've heard bird is focused very heavily on BGP, but Quagga is definitely no slouch in that area either.
    – stevieb
    Aug 26, 2015 at 17:41
  • Sure... that's now done.
    – stevieb
    Aug 26, 2015 at 17:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Depends on what you want. I left the net eng game a few years ago, but used Quagga heavily for my labs and route-servers.

I loved how the config was very much akin to a Cisco config, and had nearly full blown v6 support which I was heavily into at the time. It also has (had?) ISIS support.

It boils down to what you need. I've heard bird is focused very heavily on BGP, but Quagga is definitely no slouch in that area either.

Here's a NANOG list thread from 2010 that I was a part of with some info on the Bird vs. Quagga dilemma, and another thread from the same group dated only a couple of years ago.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .