RE: RIP Justification

["Guerra, Ruben" <Ruben.Guerra () arrisi com>]

Tim hit the nail on the head. Maintaining statics on a large network would become a huge problem. Human error will 
eventually occur. The network scenario I am speaking of is DSL/Cable type setups, where a customer could move from 
router to router(DSLAM/CMTS) due to capacity re-combines. Utilizing a dynamic routing protocol makes these types of 
changes easier to digest.

Using BGP would be overkill for most. Many small commercial customers to not want the complexity of BGP or want to 
spend money on extra resources (routers that actually support it) Sure for someone that needs to announce their own 
space or wants multi-homed connection def use BGP. 

-Ruben




-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Franklin [mailto:tim () pelican org] 
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:19 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification

> Now, when traffic comes from head office destined for a site prefix,
> it hits the provider gear. That provider gear will need routing
> information to head to a particular site. If you wanted to use
> statics, you will need to fill out a form each time you add/remove a
> prefix for a site and the provider must manage that. Its called a
> 'pain in the arse'.
>
> Enter RIPv2.

Or BGP.  Why not?