On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 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
I would rather say it should be thrown under a bus, squashed, then left on a set of very active railway tracks to be thoroughly mutilated, then discarded never to be seen again. > 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 Here's my thinking... If your network is not complex enough to require a dynamic routing protocol, then, you don't need RIP. If it is, then, you have scaled beyond the point where RIP is more useful than harmful. Yes, OSPF is a more complex protocol. It is also quite a bit more robust and far less susceptible to bizarre looping behaviors when it misbehaves or encounters lost state packets. It has a much shorter fall-over time for dead links and provides a much more accurate and up to date picture of the state of the network. It's a more complex world now than when RIP was developed. Owen
