[130229] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Wed Sep 29 23:32:52 2010
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CA3E45D.5070900@emanon.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:32:37 -0700
To: swm@emanon.com,
nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
> But anything, ask why you are using it. To exchange routes, yes... =
but
> how many. Is sending those every 30 seconds good? Sure, tweak it. =
But
> are you gaining anything over static routes?
For simple networks, RIP(v2, mind you) works fine. You're correct that =
the number of advertisements sent over the wire every 30 seconds won't =
scale, but with today's routers and bandwidths it takes quite a lot to =
start to cause issues.
The real nail in RIP's coffin is that with most (if not all) routers out =
there today, it's no more work to turn on and configure OSPF than it is =
to do RIP, and OSPF will help you scale much better as you go without =
being too complex for the simpler setups as well. As such, it really =
doesn't make sense to go with RIP for mere nostalgia's sake. If you have =
a specific reason not to run OSPF, fine, but those reasons are few and =
far between.
-C=
