eath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:39 a.m.
> To: Tim Franklin
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIP Justification
>
> On 1 October 2010 12:19, Tim Franklin wrote:
>> Or BGP. Why not?
>
> Of course, technically you could use
e the know-how.
Jonathon
-Original Message-
From: Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:39 a.m.
To: Tim Franklin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
On 1 October 2010 12:19, Tim Franklin wrote:
> Or BGP. Why not?
Of course, technic
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 04:28:30PM +, Tim Franklin wrote:
> Leaf-node BGP config is utterly trivial [...]
>
> The Enterprise guys really need to get out of the blanket "BGP is scary"
> mindset
It's not just "enterprise" mindset. Over the years I've seen a lot of
deployed gear that either di
> Tim hit the nail on the head. Maintaining statics on a large network would
> become a huge problem. Human error will eventually occur. The network
> scenario I am speaking of is DSL/Cable type setups, where a customer could
> move from router to router(DSLAM/CMTS) due to capacity re-combines.
- "Ruben Guerra" wrote:
> Using BGP would be overkill for most. Many small commercial customers
> to not want the complexity of BGP
This one keeps coming up.
Leaf-node BGP config is utterly trivial, and is much easier for the SP to
configure the necessary safety devices on their side to st
announce their own
space or wants multi-homed connection def use BGP.
-Ruben
-Original Message-
From: Tim Franklin [mailto:t...@pelican.org]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:19 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
> Now, when traffic comes from head office destined fo
On 10/1/2010 4:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The average home user cannot configure RIP. What is your point?
Last linksys I looked at had a checkbox. All done.
RIP has no loop prevention and is suboptimal depending on the configuration
that things get plugged in.
Damn. You mean the split horiz
On 1 October 2010 12:19, Tim Franklin wrote:
> Or BGP. Why not?
Of course, technically you could use almost any routing protocol.
OSPF and IS-IS would require more configuration and maintenance, BGP
even more still.
I think this is a pretty good example though of how RIPv2 is probably
the most
> Now, when traffic comes from head office destined for a site prefix,
> it hits the provider gear. That provider gear will need routing
> information to head to a particular site. If you wanted to use
> statics, you will need to fill out a form each time you add/remove a
> prefix for a site and th
>> RIPv2 is great for simple route injection. I'm talking really simple,
>> just to avoid statics.
> And there, my friend, is the crux of the matter. There's almost no place
> imagineable where injecting routes from RIPv2 is superior to statics.
Well, let me stimulate your imagination..
IPVPN cl
Why would you run dynamic to simple CPE at all?
Static route that stuff through DHCP or RADIUS and move on.
If you need dynamic routing across administrative boundaries, that's not a good
place
for RIP, that's a good place for BGP.
Owen
On Sep 30, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Guerra, Ruben wrote:
> I am
On Sep 30, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Heath Jones wrote:
> On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
>> As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
>> prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
>> resource-intensive and as such OSPF doe
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 9/30/2010 8:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I have no NAT whatsoever in my home network. RIP is not at all useful in my
>> scenario.
>>
>> I have multiple routers in my home network. They use a combination of BGP
>> and OSPFv3.
>>
>
> Except y
I am with Scott on this one.. I took the initial question as a focus on the
edge... not the CORE. RIP is perfect for the edge to commercial CPEs. Why would
want to run OSPF/ISIS at the edge. I would hope that it would be common
practice to not use RIP in the CORE
peace
--
Ruben Guerra
-
Haha It's all good :)
You are right about IS-IS being less resource intensive than OSPF, and
that it scales better!
On 30 September 2010 23:50, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
>
>>
>> Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
>> of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my take on it
> Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
> of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my take on it..
Sorry, my mistake. I'll go sit in my corner now...
-Jack
On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
> prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
> resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
> prefixes. Those
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
prefixes. Those numbers can be debated as you like, but I think if you wer
On 9/30/2010 3:32 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
When was the last time you ran into a younger neteng designing his topology
who went "Yes! IS-IS!"? It works fine (very well in fact) but it's just less
used.
Which makes no sense to me. I originally looked at both and thought OSPF
to be inferior to I
Maybe I WAY under-read the initial poster's question, but I was pretty
sure he wasn't talking about running it as a CORE routing protocol or
anything on the middle of their network where MPLS would be expected on
top of it!
If I missed it and he did intend that, then I'd certainly agree with you
>
> I was just curious - why would IS-IS be more die-hard than OSPF or iBGP?
>
It's like running apps on Solaris and Oracle these days instead of Linux
and MySQL. Both options work if you know what you're doing, but it's way
easier (and cheaper) to hire admins for the latter.
When was the last t
> 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...
I was just curious - why would IS-IS be more die-hard than OSPF or iBGP?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
Yes, clearly the next crowd of CCNAs will save the world. You know what they
say about giving CCNAs enable...
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
>
> > Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
> >
> > Seriously
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 a
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Carrozzo
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: John Kristoff
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIP Justification
>
> Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
>
> Seriously though, I can't t
RIP cannot also be used for traffic engineering; so if you want MPLS
then you MUST use either OSPF or ISIS. RIP, like any other distance
vector protocol, converges extremely slowly - so if you want faster
convergence then you have to use one of ISIS or OSPF.
Glen
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...
My $0.02,
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> On
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700
Jesse Loggins 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
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:15:45 -0500
> William McCall wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
>> wrote:
>> > Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
>> > like using a sledgehammer to crac
On 9/30/2010 8:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have no NAT whatsoever in my home network. RIP is not at all useful in my
scenario.
I have multiple routers in my home network. They use a combination of BGP and
OSPFv3.
Except you must configure those things. The average home user cannot.
If you
On 9/30/10 12:57 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin [1] wrote:
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
very commonly us
One would assume you aren't doing this for nostalgic reasons. At least
I would hope that!
Like anything, if you decide to vary outside the 'accepted norms', then
have a reason for it! Understand your technology, understand your
topology (re: before about RIP not needing peered neighbors wherea
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 9/29/2010 3:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
>> What are your views of when and
>> where the RIP protocol is useful?
>
> Home networks when dual NAT isn't being used. It's also the perfect protocol
> for v6 on home networks where multiple home rout
On 9/29/2010 3:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
Home networks when dual NAT isn't being used. It's also the perfect
protocol for v6 on home networks where multiple home routers might be
connected in a variety of ways.
Shocked I di
> 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.
+1 - for me, if I need a dynamic routing protocol between trust /
administrative domains,
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:15:45 -0500
William McCall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
> wrote:
> > 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 lar
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
wrote:
> 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 pa
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin wrote:
> On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
> > One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
> > router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
> > very commonly used for point-to-point non-edge lin
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:31:26 -0500
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 usi
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
> One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
> router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
> very commonly used for point-to-point non-edge links, you can eliminate
> that delay and also the corresponding netwo
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 s
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:26:17 -0400
Craig wrote:
> We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
> were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was
> better, and it works well..
>
I'm don't really buy the extra config argument. It's literall
hi, I summarize the discussion in my way. Please add or fix it.
* RIP works okay in topologies without topological loops.
I would like to elaborate the term "small networks" in "RIP works
well in small networks".
Specifically the term "small network" would mean:
1) the diameter of
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
> But anything, ask why you are using it. To exchange routes, yes... but
> how many. Is sending those every 30 seconds good? Sure, tweak it. But
> are you gaining anything over static routes?
For simple networks, RIP(v2, mind you) works fine.
I know of one large-ish provider that does it exactly like that - RIPv2 between
POP edge routers and provider-managed CPE. In addition to the simplicity, it
lets them filter routes at redistribution without having to fiddle with
inter-area OSPF (or, ghod forbid, multiple OSPF processes redistrib
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 p
I think you're right that everything has its' place. But you gotta
know where that is and why you choose it!
RIP(v2) is great in that there aren't neighbor relationships, so you can
shoot routes around in a semi-sane-haphazard fashion if need be.
Whatever your reality you exist in like satellit
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 pe
>>> On 9/29/2010 at 4:24 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> > 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-spe
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:35:06 -0500
Christopher Gatlin 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
This is why they need a 'like' button on nanog!! :)
> 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 programmi
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 S
> > 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 do
We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was better,
and it works well..
I could discuss it more with you off-line if you like.
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
> A group
RIP is useful as an edge protocol where there is a single access - less system
overhead than OSPF.
The service provider and the customer can redistribute the routes into whatever
routing protocol they use in their own networks.
Jonathon
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Loggins [mailto:jl
On 29/09/2010 22:36, Dale W. Carder wrote:
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things such as OSPF.
The good thing about vendors who charge license fees to run more
sophisticated things such as OSPF is that there are always other ven
Thus spake Jesse Loggins (jlogginsc...@gmail.com) on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at
01:20:48PM -0700:
> This leads to my question. What are your views of when and
> where the RIP protocol is useful?
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things s
From: e...@egon.cc
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: RIP Justification
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:53:40 -0700
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>
> > The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the
> > only routin
I am referring to RIPv2
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Heath Jones wrote:
> Jesse - just to clarify, are you talking about v1 or v2? There is also
> a proposal for v3..
> In my previous post, I was assuming v2.
>
--
Jesse Loggins
CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)
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 p
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the
only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static
IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on
the local segment, OSPF took over netwo
Jesse - just to clarify, are you talking about v1 or v2? There is also
a proposal for v3..
In my previous post, I was assuming v2.
On 29 Sep 2010 15:20, 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 protoc
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins
wrote:
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".
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1 specific) In 99% of
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 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 p
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Gladney
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:29 PM
> To: 'Jesse Loggins'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: RIP Justification
>
> with RIP you do lose the ability to use variable bit
> masks
> (CIDR) and faster
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
a
Loss of using VLSM's is a big thing to give up.
You can go to RIPv2 and get that however. Would work for small networks to
stay under the hop-count limit as it is still distance-vector.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wro
IPVPN arrangement with multiple sites & no redundancy for each small site.
RIP to advertise networks from each site towards cloud, quick and easy.
I would think it would depend on the complexity of the network and how the
network advertises routes to peer networks. I'm always in favor the simpler
the better but with RIP you do lose the ability to use variable bit masks
(CIDR) and faster routing algorithms like DUAL used in Cisco routers and
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 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 pr
71 matches
Mail list logo
