[130220] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Crist Clark)
Wed Sep 29 20:13:17 2010
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:11:55 -0700
From: "Crist Clark" <Crist.Clark@globalstar.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
In-Reply-To: <201009292324.o8TNOxaP093631@aurora.sol.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>>> On 9/29/2010 at 4:24 PM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
>> > where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the =3D
>> incorrect
>> > forum for such questions.
>>=20
>> RIP has one property no "modern" protocol has. It works on simplex =3D
>> links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with low-speed terrestrial =
=3D
>> uplink).
>>=20
>> Is that useful? I don't know, but it is still a fact.
>=20
> I once had cause to write a RIP broadcast daemon while on-site with a
> client; they had some specific brokenness with a Novell server and some
> other gear that was "fixed" by a UNIX box, a C compiler, and maybe 20
> or 30 minutes of programming (mostly to remember the grimy specifics of
> UDP broadcast programming). I do not recall the specific routing issue,
> but being able to just inject a periodic "spoofed" packet was sufficient
> to repair them.
I've got a RIPv2 daemon written in a few dozen lines of Perl
to do something very similar.
In other situations, RIPv2 has strong KISS appeal.
