On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...
But what about all of those students even now working on getting their Lab RIP routing to work ? Surely such a huge crowd-sourcing will solve any remaining problems with the protocol by the end of the term! Regards Marshall
My $0.02,
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff <jtk@cymru.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700 Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie@gmail.com> wrote:
OSPF. It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old antiquated protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet "never to be seen or heard from again". Some even preferred using a more complex protocol like OSPF instead of RIP. I am of the opinion that
Complexity depending on your perspective. The implementation might be more complicated to code, but by and large the major implementations after years of experience seem to be very stable now. If the physical topology and stability is increasingly "interesting", RIP may be a more complex protocol to use and troubleshoot than OSPF. In essence, dealing with loops and topology changes in RIP involves a set of incomplete and unsatisfactory hacks for more than the simplest of environments.
every protocol has its place, which seems to be contrary to some engineers way of thinking. This leads to my question. What are your views of when and where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the incorrect forum for such questions.
As an implementation of distance vector, its at least useful as a teaching tool about routing theory, history and implementations.
John