Remove legacy tools #363
Comments
|
I'm fine with removing |
|
rdisc has no alternatives (i mean something that implements ICMP router discovery protocol) and i think that it may be useful in some scanarios. It's very simple and stable tool. I don't know how widely it is used but recently i had need to build deb package for work purposes. It does not exist in ubuntu and debian repos. But it included by default in all rpm distros that i know. |
|
I'm fine with dropping all of these. |
ninfod implements an obsolete experimental protocol that hasn't seen any activity since 2006. It's pretty dead at this point. In the unlikely event that anybody ever starts work on this protocol again, the code will still exist in git history, and I think that's enough. We should drop this.
There are additional tftp implementations besides dnsmasq as well. I usually reach for hpa's implementation if I need one, but atftp is another option.
It's only been obsolete since 1985! Maybe if somebody out there needs to bootstrap a 1970's era VAX or something, this might be useful, but I don't see it being worth much maintainer attention. Historical versions of the code are always available in git.
There is an ancient request to package this for Debian, but I've never gotten around to it. I can't envision a scenario where IRDP is preferable in any way to DHCP for these purposes. I'd love to hear a legitimate use case for it.
Drop it. There's another implementation, and we've got tracepath anyway. |
|
@nmeyerhans DHCP is more complex to configure and it will not save your machines from gateway death and also for DHCP server failover scenarios you should implement some reserve instance and some kind of replication between them in some scenarios. I don't think that all dns server implementations support automatic failover... About gateway - yes, you could announce some VIP for clients,(for example if you have two gateways with keepalived), but not allways you could have a keepalived or something similar,(i know only one another VRRP implementation - vrrpd, for Windows there is no VRRP at all, but with Routing and Remote Access it can act as IRDP server). And so in some situations it may be appropriate to have some routers with IRDP server and rdisc as client at other machines. Gateway will be chosen by annoucement preference, so if announcement with higher preference is no more seen another with lower will be applied. Work and simple gateway failover. Also i see that IRDP present in Juniper, Cisco and Ruckus documentation and it looks like their devices still support it. |
|
to be honest I've just finished writing the systemd units for tftpd, if possible I'd much rather have a tftp server installed with iputils that having to install another package, it's small, it's usable, and it gets the job done |
|
the canonical one (tftp hpa) is more featureful. I don't see value in competing in this space, especially when the iputils one is uncommon. just drop it and don't waste more time on it. |
|
@Amanuense-del-diavolo "it's small: our |
tftpd from tftp-hpa project [1] is more featureful (man tftpd(8) [2]). Also dnsmasq supports secure read-only TFTP server (man dnsmasq(8) [3]). Our tftpd implementation requires inetd to run, that is quite a rarity nowadays, that's why it has been disabled 737d8a9 ("tftpd: stop building by default") 2 years ago (released in s20200821). OpenWrt still uses our implementation [4], but it can be replaced with tftp-hpa (same size as our implementation, also uses inetd). Projects which require systemd service should use dnsmasq. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/tftp/tftp-hpa.git [2] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/tftpd-hpa/tftpd.8.en.html [3] https://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html [4] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/abb0501e2828db50782591ecb0f11beb0c0b6bb3/net/iputils/Makefile#L42 Link: iputils#363 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Suggested-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
oh well, the irony of implement a thing and the next day it gets dropped, 😂 |
|
@Amanuense-del-diavolo I'm sorry to drop your work, but this is a result of considering a time which requires maintaining things which aren't widely used because others project are more mature. Would you please consider contributing systemd service to hpa project which also lack it? (NOTE dnsmasq - a live project which implements tftpd - already has systemd service). |
tftpd from tftp-hpa project [1] is more featureful (man tftpd(8) [2]). Also dnsmasq supports secure read-only TFTP server (man dnsmasq(8) [3]). Our tftpd implementation requires inetd to run, that is quite a rarity nowadays, that's why it has been disabled 737d8a9 ("tftpd: stop building by default") 2 years ago (released in s20200821). OpenWrt still uses our implementation [4], but it can be replaced with tftp-hpa (same size as our implementation, also uses inetd). Projects which require systemd service should use dnsmasq. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/tftp/tftp-hpa.git [2] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/tftpd-hpa/tftpd.8.en.html [3] https://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html [4] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/abb0501e2828db50782591ecb0f11beb0c0b6bb3/net/iputils/Makefile#L42 Link: iputils#363 Closes: iputils#369 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Suggested-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
tftpd from tftp-hpa project [1] is more featureful (man tftpd(8) [2]). Also dnsmasq supports secure read-only TFTP server (man dnsmasq(8) [3]). Our tftpd implementation requires inetd to run, that is quite a rarity nowadays, that's why it has been disabled 737d8a9 ("tftpd: stop building by default") 2 years ago (released in s20200821). OpenWrt still uses our implementation [4], but it can be replaced with tftp-hpa (same size as our implementation, also uses inetd). Projects which require systemd service should use dnsmasq. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/tftp/tftp-hpa.git [2] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/tftpd-hpa/tftpd.8.en.html [3] https://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html [4] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/abb0501e2828db50782591ecb0f11beb0c0b6bb3/net/iputils/Makefile#L42 Link: iputils#363 Closes: iputils#369 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Suggested-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
tftpd from tftp-hpa project [1] is more featureful (man tftpd(8) [2]). Also dnsmasq supports secure read-only TFTP server (man dnsmasq(8) [3]). Our tftpd implementation requires inetd to run, that is quite a rarity nowadays, that's why it has been disabled 737d8a9 ("tftpd: stop building by default") 2 years ago (released in s20200821). OpenWrt still uses our implementation [4], but it can be replaced with tftp-hpa (same size as our implementation, also uses inetd). Projects which require systemd service should use dnsmasq. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/tftp/tftp-hpa.git [2] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/tftpd-hpa/tftpd.8.en.html [3] https://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html [4] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/blob/abb0501e2828db50782591ecb0f11beb0c0b6bb3/net/iputils/Makefile#L42 Link: #363 Closes: #369 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Suggested-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
It will be noted in CHANGES file, but to make it more visible. Link: iputils#363 Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
It will be noted in CHANGES file, but to make it more visible. Link: iputils#363 Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
It will be noted in CHANGES file, but to make it more visible. Link: iputils#363 Reviewed-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
It will be noted in CHANGES file, but to make it more visible. Link: iputils#363 Reviewed-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
It will be noted in CHANGES file, but to make it more visible. Link: iputils#363 Closes: iputils#372 Reviewed-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
|
FYI I plan release during November, after that I'll remove other legacy tools. |
|
Apologies for never chiming in, I leave it to you to decide. I would've preferred traceroute6 stayed as that makes things easier to jump between different envs (the BSDs and macOS by heritage ship with traceroute6) but I'll seek out the other implementation mentioned here or just pull the removed copy from here back in. |
ninfod implements responses to IPv6 Node Information Queries (RFC4620) from clients. RFC4620 is an obsolete experimental protocol that hasn't seen any activity since 2006. It's pretty dead at this point. Fixes: iputils#363 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Acked-by: Jan Synacek <jan.synacek@scrive.com> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
rarpd implements Reverse Address Resolution Protocol (RARP) defined in RFC 903 (1984). It's obsolete since 1985, by BOOTP and later DHCP protocols. Fixes: iputils#363 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
rdisc implements client side of the ICMP Internet Router Discovery Protocol (IRDP) defined in RFC 1256. It haven't been actively used by many decades. Nowadays replaced by DHCP. Fixes: iputils#363 Acked-by: Jan Synacek <jan.synacek@scrive.com> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
rdisc implements both client and server side of the ICMP Internet Router Discovery Protocol (IRDP) defined in RFC 1256. It haven't been actively used by many decades. Nowadays replaced by DHCP. Fixes: iputils#363 Acked-by: Jan Synacek <jan.synacek@scrive.com> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
rarpd implements Reverse Address Resolution Protocol (RARP) defined in RFC 903 (1984). It's obsolete since 1985, by BOOTP and later DHCP protocols. Fixes: #363 Suggested-by: Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com> Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Sevan Janiyan <venture37@geeklan.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
rdisc implements both client and server side of the ICMP Internet Router Discovery Protocol (IRDP) defined in RFC 1256. It haven't been actively used by many decades. Nowadays replaced by DHCP. Fixes: #363 Acked-by: Jan Synacek <jan.synacek@scrive.com> Acked-by: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com> Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Sevan Janiyan <venture37@geeklan.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
ninfod, rarpd, rdisc are legacy tools which are going to be removed from upstream in next release [1], following previous removals [2]. Remove them now from Alpine. [1] iputils/iputils#388 [2] iputils/iputils#363 Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@gmail.com>
ninfodIs it still relevant and should be kept? It's packaged for Packaged for Fedora as a separate package (@jsynacek).
rarpdReason: obsoleted by BOOTP and later DHCP protocols. Packaged for openSUSE as a separate package (@pevik).
Debian has very old version from the same author, as a separate package.
rdiscIs it still relevant and should be kept? Packaged for Fedora (@jsynacek) and openSUSE (@pevik).
tftpdrequires inetd to run, that is quite a rarity nowadays,
dnsmasqis much better alternative, but maybe the size is relevant (dnsmasq: 432K,tftpd: 60K). Packaged for openWRT (@nmeyerhans)UPDATE: PR Remove tftpd #369
traceroute6Packaged for Debian (@nmeyerhans), which traceroute from Dmitry Butskoy.
UPDATE removed in: [RFC] Remove traceroute6 #362.
@jsynacek @nmeyerhans @okias @nmav @vapier @yurchor @neheb @6eh01der @sevan @zenczykowski @floppym could you please note what you prefer keep and what to remove?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: