bgp
Transports
A few random discussions have come up on transports over the past bit.
I've got a firm view on one damn thing: stayRTR is never going to do quic for rtr, RFC or not.
But on other matters, opinions on other transports?
TCP-MD5 would be a nice-to-have, for many operators it would make RTR sessions similar to how BGP sessions often are configured.
Does any platform already support MD5-TCP?
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 00:28 Job Snijders @.***> wrote:
job left a comment (bgp/stayrtr#149) https://github.com/bgp/stayrtr/issues/149#issuecomment-3530295826
TCP-MD5 would be a nice-to-have, for many operators it would make RTR sessions similar to how BGP sessions often are configured.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bgp/stayrtr/issues/149#issuecomment-3530295826, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALPK4V647RDBM2FQLZCZT334UO3DAVCNFSM6AAAAACL7RKKCKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTKMZQGI4TKOBSGY . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Both daemons support Netlink (which in turn means Arista and VPP platforms), kroute…
TCP-MD5 is easier to set up and manage than SSH and TLS, and arguably an improvement over plain TCP. It’s far more widely supported than TCP-AO.
If you want to support TCP-MD5 there is likely a conversation around what platforms stayrtr is suppose to run on, given this instantly adds a cross platform burden for each platform does MD5 differently.
I would argue that we should not be supporting Darwin and Windows, and maybe not BSDs (as IIRC FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD all have different ways of doing MD5, this adds a pretty large QA burden)
Agreed. Let’s limit the scope to what the developers use themselves. Between you, me, William, and Claudio that’s gonna be Linux and OpenBSD.
Other datapoint: I’ve supported several ISPs deploying StayRTR on OpenBSD and Linux, but not FreeBSD, NetBSD, Windows, or Mac