My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes. Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's to peer in large scale networks such as the internet. A far cry from business partners exchanging dynamic routes for fault tolerance. I've seen RIPv2 very successfully deployed in modern networks in this fashion. I advocate using an appropriate tool for the job. Christopher Gatlin CCIE #15245 (R&S/Security) On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Mark Smith < nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500 Christopher Gatlin <chris@travelingtech.net> wrote:
RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with untrusted networks. RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM and MD5 authentication. Since it's distance vector it's much easier to filter than a protocol that uses a link state database that must be the same across an entire area.
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.