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 <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 > >