RIP Justification

Christopher Gatlin chris at
Thu Sep 30 00:31:26 UTC 2010

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.

I've seen RIPv2 very successfully deployed in modern networks in this
fashion.  I advocate using an appropriate tool for the job.

Christopher Gatlin
CCIE #15245 (R&S/Security)

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Mark Smith <
nanog at> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500
> Christopher Gatlin <chris at> 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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list