[Xorp-users] Urgent Queries about XORP package

[Mohd Arif]

Hi, Thanks for the kind words.
I look forward to the contribution in XORP in whatever small way i can.
Regarding interoperability of quagga and xorp:
"As PIM is "protocol independent", so my understanding is that PIM make use of routing table managed by any unicast routing protocol, lets say ospf.
It doesn't matter that the unicast routing protocol is an implementation of quagga or xorp because PIM-SM just refer to kernel routing table regardless of the fact that which unicast routing protocol are creating entries in routing table."
With this understanding, i concluded that quagga implementation of ospf and xorp's PIM-SM can be used together.
Is my understanding correct?
 
Thanks in advance.

________________________________

From: Bruce Simpson [mailto:bms at incunabulum.net]
Sent: Tue 12/8/2009 12:18 AM
To: Mohd Arif
Cc: xorp-users at xorp.org
Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] Urgent Queries about XORP package



Mohd Arif wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> I am a new user of XORP. I am still collecting information about XORP.
> I would be thankful to xorp mailing list for the clarifications:
>
> Query #1: Does XORP supports PPC architecture? If yes, what options
> are needed by "configure" to cross   compile the source code? If no,
> then its a bad news :(
>

Cross-compilation currently hasn't been tested with the SCons build.

You are welcome to contribute to the ongoing development effort of
getting cross compilation to work with the new build system.

>
> Query #2: Is it possible to compile just PIM-SM in XORP software package?
>

Yes, if the SCons build is appropriately patched to build only what's
needed.

Patches to do this would be gratefully received.

>
> Query #3: Does PIM-SM have any dependency on other protocols supported
> by XORP?
>

Yes, it requires the FEA, IGMP, MLD and libmrt components.
>
>
> Query #3: Are XORP and QUAGGA compatible? I mean to say that is it
> possible to use OSPF implementation of QUAGGA and PIM-SM
> implementation of XORP together?
>

They are not designed to be interoperable in this way.

However, you may be able to get this configuration working by using the
kernel as an indirect RIB. This is of course not going to scale very
well if you have a lot of routes, or if you need to use route policies.

It is also a configuration that can't officially be supported; if you
try this, you're on your own.

I can't think of any singular advantage offered by using Quagga's OSPF
implementation over what's already in the tree.

> Your initial inputs will help me to gain confidence.
>

New contributors to the project are welcome. Do you plan to submit code?

thanks,
BMS





DISCLAIMER: 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and
intended 
for the named recipient(s) only.  
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or NECHCL or its 
affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in  
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the 
opinions of NECHCL or its affiliates.  
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of  
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is 
strictly prohibited. If you have  
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. . 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-users/attachments/20091208/f35394d0/attachment.html