[130205] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathon Exley)
Wed Sep 29 17:52:25 2010
From: Jonathon Exley <Jonathon.Exley@kordia.co.nz>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:50:54 +1300
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinW=V+RqCOf1DmBzuD06WzQk6upkZTNtU_cRCc6@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
RIP is useful as an edge protocol where there is a single access - less sys=
tem overhead than OSPF.
The service provider and the customer can redistribute the routes into what=
ever routing protocol they use in their own networks.
Jonathon=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Loggins [mailto:jlogginsccie@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, 30 September 2010 9:21 a.m.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RIP Justification
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing pr=
otocols 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 consi=
der RIP an old antiquated protocol that should be thrown in back of a close=
t "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 p=
rotocol 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.
--
Jesse Loggins
CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)
This email and attachments: are confidential; may be protected by
privilege and copyright; if received in error may not be used,copied,
or kept; are not guaranteed to be virus-free; may not express the
views of Kordia(R); do not designate an information system; and do not
give rise to any liability for Kordia(R).
