[130199] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Wed Sep 29 17:22:26 2010
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:22:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <E8F63E30-170F-4A67-BB4A-64FD2DD60461@egon.cc>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I see nothing wrong with using RIPV2 for small networks as it is more dynam=
ic and faster convergence.
As for RIPv1=2C I think we can all say=2C RIP!! (no pun intended) Ok yes it=
was intended.... LOL...
I think some engineers get lost in the "whatever is newer is better" and yo=
u don't need to use a complicated
protocol for small simple networks. Now=2C you should think ahead if that's=
possible and if you do know it can
get complicated=2C you can implement the right protocol from the start.
I have not heard about RIPv3. I suppose I should start looking into it.....=
.
> From: egon@egon.cc
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIP Justification
> Date: Wed=2C 29 Sep 2010 13:53:40 -0700
>=20
>=20
> On Sep 29=2C 2010=2C at 1:47 PM=2C Ricky Beam wrote:
>=20
> > The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the =20
> > only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static =20
> > IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on =20
> > the local segment=2C OSPF took over network-wide. (Later MaxTNT's were =
=20
> > setup with OSPF
>=20
> I remember RIP across chassis for the TotalControl bonded dialup =20
> stuff=2C and as you mention=2C static IPs=2C but I haven't seen it in =20
> serious use for a long time.
>=20
> Cheers=2C
> -j
>=20
=
