[130185] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed Sep 29 16:27:29 2010
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinW=V+RqCOf1DmBzuD06WzQk6upkZTNtU_cRCc6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:27:05 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 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
> 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
> where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the =
incorrect
> forum for such questions.
RIP has one property no "modern" protocol has. It works on simplex =
links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with low-speed terrestrial =
uplink).
Is that useful? I don't know, but it is still a fact.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
