brandon.kim at brandontek.com
Wed Sep 29 16:22:03 CDT 2010
I see nothing wrong with using RIPV2 for small networks as it is more dynamic and faster convergence.
As for RIPv1, I think we can all say, RIP!! (no pun intended) Ok yes it was intended.... LOL...
I think some engineers get lost in the "whatever is newer is better" and you don't need to use a complicated
protocol for small simple networks. Now, you should think ahead if that's possible and if you do know it can
get complicated, you can implement the right protocol from the start.
I have not heard about RIPv3. I suppose I should start looking into it......
> From: egon at egon.cc
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIP Justification
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:53:40 -0700
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the
> > only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static
> > IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on
> > the local segment, OSPF took over network-wide. (Later MaxTNT's were
> > setup with OSPF
> I remember RIP across chassis for the TotalControl bonded dialup
> stuff, and as you mention, static IPs, but I haven't seen it in
> serious use for a long time.
More information about the NANOG