RIP Justification

Christopher Gatlin chris at
Wed Sep 29 20:35:06 UTC 2010

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.


On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Gary Gladney <gladney at> wrote:

> I would think it would depend on the complexity of the network and how the
> network advertises routes to peer networks.  I'm always in favor the
> simpler
> the better but with RIP you do lose the ability to use variable bit masks
> (CIDR) and faster routing algorithms like DUAL used in Cisco routers and
> I'm
> not a big fan of OSPF.
> Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Loggins [mailto:jlogginsccie at]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:21 PM
> To: nanog at
> Subject: RIP Justification
> 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.
> --
> Jesse Loggins
> CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)

More information about the NANOG mailing list