[130188] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Mills)
Wed Sep 29 16:35:31 2010
In-Reply-To: <5F3648B7-3B61-4E8C-8B64-03740830F5AE@ianai.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:34:59 -0400
From: Charles Mills <w3yni1@gmail.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Loss of using VLSM's is a big thing to give up.
You can go to RIPv2 and get that however. Would work for small networks to
stay under the hop-count limit as it is still distance-vector.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
> 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.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
>
--
=====================================
Charles L. Mills
Westmoreland Co. ARES EC
Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI
Email: w3yni1@gmail.com
