On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin wrote: > 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. > No, it's like using a wrench to tighten a nut. Using RIPv2 for the task is like using a pair of pliers.
> I've seen RIPv2 very successfully deployed in modern networks in this > fashion. I advocate using an appropriate tool for the job. > So do I. Use a wrench, not a pair of pliers, no matter how much it seems easier to reach the piers. Owen > > 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. >> >> >>
