[130268] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Thu Sep 30 16:45:16 2010
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:44:48 -0400
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=kgccxq7JLwZrgj6SsyvJxGAYMAL4kRs6vSP7C@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Maybe I WAY under-read the initial poster's question, but I was pretty
sure he wasn't talking about running it as a CORE routing protocol or
anything on the middle of their network where MPLS would be expected on
top of it!
If I missed it and he did intend that, then I'd certainly agree with you
(among many other reasons why it would be a horrible idea)! ;)
Scott
On 9/30/10 12:59 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> RIP cannot also be used for traffic engineering; so if you want MPLS
> then you MUST use either OSPF or ISIS. RIP, like any other distance
> vector protocol, converges extremely slowly - so if you want faster
> convergence then you have to use one of ISIS or OSPF.
>
> Glen
>
>
>
