nanog mailing list archives
Re: RIP Justification
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:47:01 -0400
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie () gmail com> wrote:
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".
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1 specific) In 99% of the cases where I've seen RIP used (over 2 decades), they would've been better off with static routes. (or they needed something a lot more complex/robust... say, a power company running RIPv1 over their entire network.) The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on the local segment, OSPF took over network-wide. (Later MaxTNT's were setup with OSPF stub areas so they didn't have to have a full route table.)
BTW, ALL other routing protocols are more complex than RIP. One cannot get any simpler than RIP.
--Ricky
Current thread:
- Re: RIP Justification, (continued)
- 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 Owen DeLong (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Mark Smith (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification James Downs (Sep 29)
- RE: RIP Justification Brandon Kim (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Jesse Loggins (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Nick Hilliard (Sep 29)
- Re: RIP Justification Chris Woodfield (Sep 29)