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 whereas OSPF does) and you may have your justification. If it's for nostalgia or "just because", then I'd say everyone agrees that RIP has passed its usefulness! Scott On 9/29/10 11:32 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > 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. You're correct that the > number of advertisements sent over the wire every 30 seconds won't scale, but > with today's routers and bandwidths it takes quite a lot to start to cause > issues. > > The real nail in RIP's coffin is that with most (if not all) routers out > there today, it's no more work to turn on and configure OSPF than it is to do > RIP, and OSPF will help you scale much better as you go without being too > complex for the simpler setups as well. As such, it really doesn't make sense > to go with RIP for mere nostalgia's sake. If you have a specific reason not > to run OSPF, fine, but those reasons are few and far between. > > -C >
