RIP Justification

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Thu Sep 30 17:05:27 UTC 2010


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Carrozzo
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: John Kristoff
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIP Justification
> 
> 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

The one and only place I have used RIPv2 and RIPng is for distributing
igp information on links between BGP routers.  Say I have a cluster of
such routers with some /30 links (for IPv4) to transit, peers and each
other.  Basically I run RIP with "redistribute connected" on them and
only running on the internal interfaces connecting the routers.  All RIP
is doing at that point is providing an igp path to the BGP next hop.
There is really no need to run OSPF for that and frankly I don't WANT
OSPF running there for other reasons.





More information about the NANOG mailing list