24.06.2020 15:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Different people have different opinions :-) > Let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make: RIP original design was created > a long time ago. The current landscape is different: there are multiple > protocols that are superset of RIP. There are multiple implementations of > these protocols that are easily available. The configuration is not non-zero, > but simple. > Even further, more and more want their protocol daemon to have an api - and > that makes implementations like goBGP extremely popular, moving people from > "traditional" routing suites/daemons. > With all that in mind, I see RIP popularity and usage going in only one > direction.
Btw, I do use RIPv2 in production these days (but with ripd, not routed) and I have several reasons to do so. First, RIPv2 is distance-vector protocol and has some advantages over OSPF for small-diameter but geographically distributed network (dictinct cities inter-connected with tunnels) as it does not require existence of "inseparable" backbone. RIPv2 offers richer ways to route filtering and/or preferring that you can achieve with OSPF only if you create distinct area for each router :-) Next, with years I came to decision running both OSPF and RIPv2 in parallel without route redistribution. This doubles my work initially at configuration stage but provides me with some protection against software failures. I can easily stop, debug and restart one of routing daemons while another one still runs so network has connectivity. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
