Re: RIP Justification

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () americafree tv>]

On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:

> Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
>
> Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where
> RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really
> die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...

But what about all of those students even now working on getting their Lab RIP routing to work ?
Surely such a huge crowd-sourcing will solve any remaining problems with the protocol by the end of the term!

Regards
Marshall

> My $0.02,
>
> -Jack
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff <jtk () cymru com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700
> > Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > Complexity depending on your perspective.  The implementation might be
> > more complicated to code, but by and large the major implementations
> > after years of experience seem to be very stable now.  If the physical
> > topology and stability is increasingly "interesting", RIP may be a more
> > complex protocol to use and troubleshoot than OSPF.  In essence,
> > dealing with loops and topology changes in RIP involves a set of
> > incomplete and unsatisfactory hacks for more than the simplest of
> > environments.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > As an implementation of distance vector, its at least useful as a teaching
> > tool about routing theory, history and implementations.
> >
> > John