Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:22:07 +0000 nanog-request@nanog.org fuream loqour :

If your network is of a scale where it exceeds the utility of static, then, it is almost certainly of a scale and topology where it exceeds the utility of RIP.

I'd agree that RIP is old, aged, and we all can probably go on with personal horror stories of how a broadcast-only-based routing protocol created a small or large pocket of disaster alone or combined with some other technology below or above its layer in the stack. However, like some other speakers in this thread mentioned, situation + simplicity + engineering = success. RIP certainly has it's place in small pockets now, I still use it in places mostly just to float a few loopbacks or statics around with old equipment, or firewalls I don't trust doing a more robust routing protocol. I see routing protocols, operating systems too, as different tools. If the tool works, fits, and rarely breaks where it's used, cool - I like simple & predictable, which includes predictable failure as well as predictable success. RIP also has the advantage of being around for a long while, so most devices will "get it right" - more complex routing protocol code, found in other IGPs, etc. - exceptions / vendor implementations still rule. I've never done a multicast network with RIP though... *winks* =) /dmfh -- __| |_ __ / _| |_ 01100100 01101101 / _` | ' \| _| ' \ 01100110 01101000 \__,_|_|_|_|_| |_||_| dmfh(-2)dmfh.cx