On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its use versus a protocol like 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
I would rather say it should be thrown under a bus, squashed, then left on a set of very active railway tracks to be thoroughly mutilated, then discarded never to be seen again.
more complex protocol like OSPF instead of RIP. I am of the opinion that 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
Here's my thinking... If your network is not complex enough to require a dynamic routing protocol, then, you don't need RIP. If it is, then, you have scaled beyond the point where RIP is more useful than harmful. Yes, OSPF is a more complex protocol. It is also quite a bit more robust and far less susceptible to bizarre looping behaviors when it misbehaves or encounters lost state packets. It has a much shorter fall-over time for dead links and provides a much more accurate and up to date picture of the state of the network. It's a more complex world now than when RIP was developed. Owen