RIP Justification

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Sep 30 02:49:48 UTC 2010

On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 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

I would rather say it should be thrown under a bus, squashed, then left on
a set of very active railway tracks to be thoroughly mutilated, then discarded
never to be seen again.

> 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

Here's my thinking... If your network is not complex enough to require a dynamic
routing protocol, then, you don't need RIP. If it is, then, you have scaled beyond
the point where RIP is more useful than harmful.

Yes, OSPF is a more complex protocol. It is also quite a bit more robust and
far less susceptible to bizarre looping behaviors when it misbehaves or
encounters lost state packets. It has a much shorter fall-over time for dead
links and provides a much more accurate and up to date picture of the
state of the network. It's a more complex world now than when RIP was


More information about the NANOG mailing list