Loss of using VLSM's is a big thing to give up. You can go to RIPv2 and get that however. Would work for small networks to stay under the hop-count limit as it is still distance-vector.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net>wrote: > On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 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 > > 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 > > where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the > incorrect > > forum for such questions. > > RIP has one property no "modern" protocol has. It works on simplex links > (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with low-speed terrestrial uplink). > > Is that useful? I don't know, but it is still a fact. > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > > -- ===================================== Charles L. Mills Westmoreland Co. ARES EC Amateur Radio Callsign W3YNI Email: w3y...@gmail.com
