RIP Justification

Charles Mills w3yni1 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 29 15:34:59 CDT 2010


Loss of using VLSM's is a big thing to give up.

You can go to RIPv2 and get that however.  Would work for small networks to
stay under the hop-count limit as it is still distance-vector.



On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
=====================================
Charles L. Mills
Westmoreland Co. ARES EC
Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI
Email: w3yni1 at gmail.com



More information about the NANOG mailing list