Best Linux (or BSD) hosted BGP?

Wed May 10 13:40:32 UTC 2023

>
> No, but it's brittle. A workaround, not a solution. Likely to break
> during future maintenance. "Unpredictable" as Mark put it.
>
> Nothing a routing daemon does should involve the kernel BPF. The next
> sysadmin won't be expecting it.

Not sure I agree.

Implemented defaults may not be appropriate in all environments and
situations, so mechanisms are provided for admins to tune and adjust for
what they need. We do this all the time on everything. I'm not ignorant of
the fact that this can lend to 'oops' scenarios where someone didn't
document the adjustment from default, or it was forgotten, lost, etc. But
that's not a technical issue, that's a human one.

There's always a tradeoff to be made. Sysadmins could adjust tunables, but
then they have to manage that delta. Or developers can add code to work
around the situation, but they have to manage that. Someone has to do work
somewhere.

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:55 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 6:40 PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
> >> The implication being that while it might work, it would make
> administration of the system onerous and unpredictable, considering we are
> dealing with a ton of FreeBSD installations, and not just a single server.
> >
> > Adjusting a single tunable is 'onerous'?
>
> No, but it's brittle. A workaround, not a solution. Likely to break
> during future maintenance. "Unpredictable" as Mark put it.
>
> Nothing a routing daemon does should involve the kernel BPF. The next
> sysadmin won't be expecting it.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230510/fc40ebb3/attachment.html>