Thanks Joe! You just added a new term to my vocabulary!
"Technical Correctness" I think I'm going to go out of my way now to use this in the office... =) > From: jgr...@ns.sol.net > Subject: Re: RIP Justification > To: patr...@ianai.net > Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:24:59 -0500 > CC: nanog@nanog.org > > > > 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. > > I once had cause to write a RIP broadcast daemon while on-site with a > client; they had some specific brokenness with a Novell server and some > other gear that was "fixed" by a UNIX box, a C compiler, and maybe 20 > or 30 minutes of programming (mostly to remember the grimy specifics of > UDP broadcast programming). I do not recall the specific routing issue, > but being able to just inject a periodic "spoofed" packet was sufficient > to repair them. > > While not the correct way to engineer a network, sometimes being able to > bring a client's network back on-line in a crisis is more important than > technical correctness. I feel reasonably certain that I would not have > been able to cobble together a quick solution if they had been relying > on OSPF, etc. A simple protocol can be a blessing. I concede it is more > often a curse. > > .... JG > -- > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail > spam(CNN) > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. >
