[130222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Gatlin)
Wed Sep 29 20:31:39 2010
In-Reply-To: <20100930092705.3a05d811@opy.nosense.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:31:26 -0500
From: Christopher Gatlin <chris@travelingtech.net>
To: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's
to peer in large scale networks such as the internet. A far cry from
business partners exchanging dynamic routes for fault tolerance.
I've seen RIPv2 very successfully deployed in modern networks in this
fashion. I advocate using an appropriate tool for the job.
Christopher Gatlin
CCIE #15245 (R&S/Security)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Mark Smith <
nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500
> Christopher Gatlin <chris@travelingtech.net> wrote:
>
> > RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with
> > untrusted networks. RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM
> and
> > MD5 authentication. Since it's distance vector it's much easier to
> filter
> > than a protocol that uses a link state database that must be the same
> across
> > an entire area.
> >
>
> I think BGP is better for that job, ultimately because it was
> specifically designed for that job, but also because it's now available
> in commodity routers for commodity prices e.g. Cisco 800 series.
>
>
>
