On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins <jlogginsccie@gmail.com> wrote:
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".
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1 specific) In 99% of the cases where I've seen RIP used (over 2 decades), they would've been better off with static routes. (or they needed something a lot more complex/robust... say, a power company running RIPv1 over their entire network.) The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on the local segment, OSPF took over network-wide. (Later MaxTNT's were setup with OSPF stub areas so they didn't have to have a full route table.) BTW, ALL other routing protocols are more complex than RIP. One cannot get any simpler than RIP. --Ricky