[130227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Sep 29 22:54:30 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinW=V+RqCOf1DmBzuD06WzQk6upkZTNtU_cRCc6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:49:48 -0700
To: Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins 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 for
> 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
I would rather say it should be thrown under a bus, squashed, then left =
on
a set of very active railway tracks to be thoroughly mutilated, then =
discarded
never to be seen again.
> 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 and
Here's my thinking... If your network is not complex enough to require a =
dynamic
routing protocol, then, you don't need RIP. If it is, then, you have =
scaled beyond
the point where RIP is more useful than harmful.
Yes, OSPF is a more complex protocol. It is also quite a bit more robust =
and
far less susceptible to bizarre looping behaviors when it misbehaves or
encounters lost state packets. It has a much shorter fall-over time for =
dead
links and provides a much more accurate and up to date picture of the
state of the network. It's a more complex world now than when RIP was
developed.
Owen
