[130192] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Wed Sep 29 16:47:44 2010
To: "Jesse Loggins" <jlogginsccie@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:47:01 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinW=V+RqCOf1DmBzuD06WzQk6upkZTNtU_cRCc6@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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".
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1 specific) In 99% of
the cases where I've seen RIP used (over 2 decades), they would've been
better off with static routes. (or they needed something a lot more
complex/robust... say, a power company running RIPv1 over their entire
network.) The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where
the only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static IP
clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on the local
segment, OSPF took over network-wide. (Later MaxTNT's were setup with OSPF
stub areas so they didn't have to have a full route table.)
BTW, ALL other routing protocols are more complex than RIP. One cannot
get any simpler than RIP.
--Ricky
