Re: RIP and RIPv2, "The glue that makes the internet work"
What was/is the largest production network (in number of end nodes) that used/uses RIP as the IGP?
Xerox routed a few thousand subnets of 13/8 with RIP (v1!) as late as 1998. Dunno if that's large enough.
Bill
Its pretty big. Most of the data is not verifiable, but a profile of 100-10,000 subnets, between 5-2000 nodes per subnet w/ RIPv1 seems to be emerging for sites like Xerox as well as old NSFnet regionals. On the other hand, reports of large, multinational networks running static routing in their cores seem to indicate a desire to have routing in the core more stable than any dynamic protocol will allow. With the growth in the number of injected prefixes and varient paths, one might say that the "value proposition" of dynamic routing is not what it once was... Or it could be that the folks running the big networks are more comfortable with manual/static routing systems? Such environments certainly provide easier means to set enforcable service level agreements. But my muse has gotten the better of me. --bill
At 12:11 AM 4/27/01 +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
What was/is the largest production network (in number of end nodes) that used/uses RIP as the IGP?
Xerox routed a few thousand subnets of 13/8 with RIP (v1!) as late as 1998. Dunno if that's large enough.
Bill it was like this in 2000 still ,then they went EIGRP. I dont know about the core but it makes one scary EIGRP network no areas !!!!!!. But the EIGRP seems very stable touch wood. Mind you I rember Luc De Ghein in the Cisco TAC saying that none of the ISP's he works with have more than one ISIS area. I am hopping this has changed. Regards, Kevin
Bill
Its pretty big. Most of the data is not verifiable, but a profile of 100-10,000 subnets, between 5-2000 nodes per subnet w/ RIPv1 seems to be emerging for sites like Xerox as well as old NSFnet regionals.
On the other hand, reports of large, multinational networks running static routing in their cores seem to indicate a desire to have routing in the core more stable than any dynamic protocol will allow.
With the growth in the number of injected prefixes and varient paths, one might say that the "value proposition" of dynamic routing is not what it once was... Or it could be that the folks running the big networks are more comfortable with manual/static routing systems? Such environments certainly provide easier means to set enforcable service level agreements. But my muse has gotten the better of me.
--bill
*********************************IMPORTANT NOTICE****************************** All e-mails for technical support must be cc'd to support@lancomms.ie. This ensures that the call is logged with the support desk and the case is actively tracked which speeds up the response you will receive. If you have an urgent problem you _must_ contact the support desk directly on 01-4093030. *****************************************************************************************
participants (2)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Kevin Gannon