[130322] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIP Justification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Heath Jones)
Fri Oct 1 07:02:45 2010
In-Reply-To: <8E5F6739-8847-43BA-997B-651DAE5E5EE9@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:02:34 +0100
From: Heath Jones <hj1980@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> 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.
Well, let me stimulate your imagination..
IPVPN cloud provided by carrier.
Head office is ethernet into cloud.
Remote sites are DSL, so terminating on LNS within cloud, and have one
or more prefixes behind CPE. Pretty simple stuff.
Now, when traffic comes from head office destined for a site prefix,
it hits the provider gear. That provider gear will need routing
information to head to a particular site. If you wanted to use
statics, you will need to fill out a form each time you add/remove a
prefix for a site and the provider must manage that. Its called a
'pain in the arse'.
Enter RIPv2.
