RIP Justification

Marshall Eubanks tme at
Thu Sep 30 18:37:26 UTC 2010

On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:

> 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...

But what about all of those students even now working on getting their Lab RIP routing to work ?
Surely such a huge crowd-sourcing will solve any remaining problems with the protocol by the end of the term!


> My $0.02,
> -Jack
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff <jtk at> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700
>> Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie at> 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list