[130240] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Franklin)
Thu Sep 30 05:33:14 2010
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:32:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <19118529.01285839050094.JavaMail.root@jennyfur.pelican.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> 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.
+1 - for me, if I need a dynamic routing protocol between trust / administrative domains, it's BGP unless there's a good reason not to. I find it more straightforward to work with (albeit slightly more up-front to configure it and get it right) than anything else - the information available is a very clear "who am I talking to?" / "what routes do I send them?" / "what routes do they send me?". Plus I can work through the route-selection process by hand from the information displayed, and have it make sense.
Regards,
Tim.
