RIP Justification

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at
Wed Sep 29 20:27:05 UTC 2010

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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list