nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIP Justification
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:27:05 -0400
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its use versus a protocol like OSPF. It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old antiquated protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet "never to be seen or heard from again". Some even preferred using a more complex protocol like OSPF instead of RIP. I am of the opinion that every protocol has its place, which seems to be contrary to some engineers way of thinking. This leads to my question. What are your views of when and where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the incorrect forum for such questions.
RIP has one property no "modern" protocol has. It works on simplex links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with low-speed terrestrial uplink). Is that useful? I don't know, but it is still a fact. -- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- RIP Justification Jesse Loggins (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Charles Mills (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Joe Greco (Sep 29)
- RE: RIP Justification Brandon Kim (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Heath Jones (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Crist Clark (Sep 29)
- RE: RIP Justification Gary Gladney (Sep 29)
- RE: RIP Justification George Bonser (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Christopher Gatlin (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Mark Smith (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Christopher Gatlin (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 29)