On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote: > Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping. > > Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where > RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really > die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...
But what about all of those students even now working on getting their Lab RIP routing to work ? Surely such a huge crowd-sourcing will solve any remaining problems with the protocol by the end of the term! Regards Marshall > > My $0.02, > > -Jack > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff <j...@cymru.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700 >> Jesse Loggins <jlogginsc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> Complexity depending on your perspective. The implementation might be >> more complicated to code, but by and large the major implementations >> after years of experience seem to be very stable now. If the physical >> topology and stability is increasingly "interesting", RIP may be a more >> complex protocol to use and troubleshoot than OSPF. In essence, >> dealing with loops and topology changes in RIP involves a set of >> incomplete and unsatisfactory hacks for more than the simplest of >> environments. >> >>> 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. >> >> As an implementation of distance vector, its at least useful as a teaching >> tool about routing theory, history and implementations. >> >> John >> >> >
