RIP Justification

Scott Morris swm at emanon.com
Wed Sep 29 20:14:05 CDT 2010


 I think you're right that everything has its' place.  But you gotta
know where that is and why you choose it!

RIP(v2) is great in that there aren't neighbor relationships, so you can
shoot routes around in a semi-sane-haphazard fashion if need be. 
Whatever your reality you exist in like satellite (or other one-way
links from the hinterlands).

But anything, ask why you are using it.  To exchange routes, yes...  but
how many.  Is sending those every 30 seconds good?  Sure, tweak it.  But
are you gaining anything over static routes?

Perhaps you are, and if so, it's a great choice in that situation.  But
I'd certainly think it would be considered to be the "edge" variety of
your network and hopefully not planning to use it through your entire
network!   :)

But yeah, I'd agree with the "time and place" argument for it.  If you
have a Cisco-only shop, ODR can be kinda cool in situations like that as
well.  Something to think about!

My two cents.

Scott

On 9/29/10 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.
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list