[130212] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig)
Wed Sep 29 18:52:15 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinW=V+RqCOf1DmBzuD06WzQk6upkZTNtU_cRCc6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Craig <cvuljanic@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:26:17 -0400
To: Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we w=
ere using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was bette=
r, and it works well..
I could discuss it more with you off-line if you like.=20
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie@gmail.com> 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 f=
or
> 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 an=
d
> where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the incorrec=
t
> forum for such questions.
>=20
> --=20
> Jesse Loggins
> CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)
