[130318] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 1 06:34:32 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=AVF13aa1MmhZYMSKLFD+7tbxa+3QRGXDEcwBe@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:33:18 -0700
To: Heath Jones <hj1980@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 30, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Heath Jones wrote:
> On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com> wrote:
>> As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have =
$lots of
>> prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far =
more
>> resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after =
$a_lot_less
>> prefixes. Those numbers can be debated as you like, but I think if =
you were
>> to redist bgp ospf on a lab machine you'd get the point.
>=20
> Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
> of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my take on it..
>=20
> RIPv2 is great for simple route injection. I'm talking really simple,
> just to avoid statics.
And there, my friend, is the crux of the matter. There's almost no place
imagineable where injecting routes from RIPv2 is superior to statics.
Owen
