[130319] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 1 06:39:02 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1285893863.3004.5.camel@Nokia-N900>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:36:20 -0700
To: "Guerra, Ruben" <Ruben.Guerra@arrisi.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Why would you run dynamic to simple CPE at all?
Static route that stuff through DHCP or RADIUS and move on.
If you need dynamic routing across administrative boundaries, that's not =
a good place
for RIP, that's a good place for BGP.
Owen
On Sep 30, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Guerra, Ruben wrote:
> I am with Scott on this one.. I took the initial question as a focus =
on the edge... not the CORE. RIP is perfect for the edge to commercial =
CPEs. Why would want to run OSPF/ISIS at the edge. I would hope that it =
would be common practice to not use RIP in the CORE....
>=20
> peace
> --
> Ruben Guerra
> --------- Sent from my Nokia N900
>=20
> ----- Original message -----
>> Haha It's all good :)
>> You are right about IS-IS being less resource intensive than OSPF, =
and
>> that it scales better!
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 30 September 2010 23:50, Jack Carrozzo =
<jack@crepinc.com<mailto:jack@crepinc.com>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>=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
>>> Sorry, my mistake. I'll go sit in my corner now...
>>> -Jack
>>=20
>=20
