My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's to peer in large scale networks such as the internet. A far cry from business partners exchanging dynamic routes for fault tolerance. I've seen RIPv2 very successfully deployed in modern networks in this fashion. I advocate using an appropriate tool for the job. Christopher Gatlin CCIE #15245 (R&S/Security) On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Mark Smith < na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500 > Christopher Gatlin <ch...@travelingtech.net> wrote: > > > RIPv2 is a great dynamic routing protocol for exchanging routes with > > untrusted networks. RIPv2 has adjustable timers, filters, supports VLSM > and > > MD5 authentication. Since it's distance vector it's much easier to > filter > > than a protocol that uses a link state database that must be the same > across > > an entire area. > > > > I think BGP is better for that job, ultimately because it was > specifically designed for that job, but also because it's now available > in commodity routers for commodity prices e.g. Cisco 800 series. > > >
