We use RIP extensively on the edges of our network to build a Layer3 routed overlay between 3550/3750 switches and our 6500-based core. At $2k/list for the EMI license PER SWITCH ($4k for 3750s), it just wasn't feasible for us to use EMI just for OSPF when all we were really announcing was a loopback and a /30 connected network.
We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges.
I assume you mean RIPv2, ie. classless. With that caveat, I can certainly see why RIP would be used. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Oh certainly, RIPv2. I tend to just assume that "RIP" is generic and everyone means v2. - Robert On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
We use RIP extensively on the edges of our network to build a Layer3 routed overlay between 3550/3750 switches and our 6500-based core. At $2k/list for the EMI license PER SWITCH ($4k for 3750s), it just wasn't feasible for us to use EMI just for OSPF when all we were really announcing was a loopback and a /30 connected network.
We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges.
I assume you mean RIPv2, ie. classless. With that caveat, I can certainly see why RIP would be used.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
We route filter and tune the RIP times down quite a bit. Meets our needs on the edges.
I assume you mean RIPv2, ie. classless. With that caveat, I can certainly see why RIP would be used.
not necessarily, classful may still work for many applications altho vlsm is likely to be the sticking point rather than classful boundaries Steve
participants (3)
-
Robert A. Hayden -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
sthaugļ¼ nethelp.no