RIP Justification

Christian Martin christian.martin at
Wed Sep 29 20:40:44 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.

I'd argue that in order to do anything useful (read: moderately sized) with RIP (aside from supporting legacy devices lacking anything else and as Patrick mentioned handling asymmetric links), you actually need to _add_ complexity in order to make it work –– if you can at all.  The lack of path vectoring limits network diameter due to counting to infinity, redundancy requires the use of hold down timers (which are proportionate to the diameter of the network), etc.

Antilock brakes are "complex" from an mechanical perspective.  But the act of braking is the same.  Turn on the protocol.  Add the necessary interfaces.  Subnet accordingly.  Summarize where possible.  Walk away.

"Let the machines do the work."  -Vijay Gill (most recently as I recall)


> -- 
> Jesse Loggins
> CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)

More information about the NANOG mailing list