[kortilla]

More commits, more features, and more bug(fixe)s are not really selling points for something as critical as BGP routing.

Would you trust two compared TCP implementations using those stats as well?

For something simple like this post, using quagga is completely fine and probably much better that using the latest Swiss Army knife.

[orf]

This comment completely misses the point. There is a distinction between "complete" and "dead", to whatever degree any software can be called "complete".

The Quagga source repo[1]'s certificate expired over 6 months ago. Looking at the Bugzilla[2] report (also with an expired certificate) there are 14 blockers, 49 critical and 69 issues that have not been resolved.

So no, I'd agree with the parent comment that using a project as seemingly dead as Quagga for something as critical as BGP routing is putting yourself on shaky ground at the very least.

1. https://gogs.quagga.net/Quagga

2. https://bugzilla.quagga.net/report.cgi?x_axis_field=bug_seve...

[kortilla]

You missed the point. It’s a demo doing trivial bgp stuff that hasn’t changed for 15 years.

It’s like someone doing a demo on some text processing where they use grep and the top comment is some jerk saying that map-reduce would be better because some new large systems use it and it’s being actively developed.

[corndoge]

Yes, I would trust an actively developed fork of a TCP stack that is 2 years ahead of its forked project more than the original. Especially for something as critical as TCP, and equally so for BGP routing. Why use a dead project that hasn't gotten bug fixes for years?

[kortilla]

You shouldn’t. I don’t think you realize how dangerous new features are in core products written in C. See Heartbleed.