RIP Justification

Wed Sep 29 20:45:43 UTC 2010

 On 29 Sep 2010 15:20, 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.

(I assume "RIP" above refers to RIPv2.)

When the automobile was developed, plenty of folks thought horses were
obsolete and would fall completely out of use.  However, the reality is
that there are still some things horses are better at, e.g. terrain that
automobiles (even 4WD) simply can't navigate, places where automobiles
are banned for safety, aesthetic and/or environmental reasons, etc.

Newer isn't always better.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3646 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100929/8e1e5c3a/attachment.bin>