RIP Justification

Thu Sep 30 03:40:16 UTC 2010

On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin wrote:

> My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
> routes with each other.  Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
> 
> Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
> like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  BGP was designed for unique AS's
> to peer in large scale networks such as the internet.  A far cry from
> business partners exchanging dynamic routes for fault tolerance.
> 
No, it's like using a wrench to tighten a nut. Using RIPv2 for the task is like
using a pair of pliers.

> I've seen RIPv2 very successfully deployed in modern networks in this
> fashion.  I advocate using an appropriate tool for the job.
> 
So do I.  Use a wrench, not a pair of pliers, no matter how much it seems
easier to reach the piers.

Owen

> 
> Christopher Gatlin
> CCIE #15245 (R&S/Security)
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Mark Smith <
> nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500
>> Christopher Gatlin <chris at travelingtech.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with
>>> untrusted networks.  RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM
>> and
>>> MD5 authentication.  Since it's distance vector it's much easier to
>> filter
>>> than a protocol that uses a link state database that must be the same
>> across
>>> an entire area.
>>> 
>> 
>> I think BGP is better for that job, ultimately because it was
>> specifically designed for that job, but also because it's now available
>> in commodity routers for commodity prices e.g. Cisco 800 series.
>> 
>> 
>> 