RIP Justification

Thu Sep 30 16:43:48 UTC 2010

Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.

Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where
RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really
die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...

My $0.02,

-Jack

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff <jtk at cymru.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700
> Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Complexity depending on your perspective.  The implementation might be
> more complicated to code, but by and large the major implementations
> after years of experience seem to be very stable now.  If the physical
> topology and stability is increasingly "interesting", RIP may be a more
> complex protocol to use and troubleshoot than OSPF.  In essence,
> dealing with loops and topology changes in RIP involves a set of
> incomplete and unsatisfactory hacks for more than the simplest of
> environments.
>
> > 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.
>
> As an implementation of distance vector, its at least useful as a teaching
> tool about routing theory, history and implementations.
>
> John
>
>