BIRD vs Quagga

Thomas Mangin thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk
Fri Feb 12 18:12:57 CST 2010


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.
> 
> Quagga++.
> 
> I've never tried the other.
> 
> 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.
> 
> There are also very active developer and user mailing lists.
> 
> For the most part, I wouldn't know if I was writing a config for a Cisco
> or for a Quagga box.
> 
> fwiw, I've also heard good things about bgpd(8) and ospfd(8), but I
> haven't tried those either...zebra/Quagga just stuck.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list