The use of RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?)

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday 01 June 2010 11:01:16 pm Benedikt Stockebrand 
wrote:

> As far as deployment goes: If you use e.g. a BSD or
>  Solaris you get a lightweight RIP daemon as part of the
>  base system, so with these systems deployment is
>  actually a bit easier---you just turn it on.

Then install Quagga/Zebra and run OSPF or IS-IS.

> So beyond "normal" data center or medium-to-large
>  enterprise networks, but in environments without
>  specialized network admins, small enough network
>  diameter and modest failover time requirements, RIP does
>  have its niche.

I'm sorry, I just don't subscribe to the idea of teaching 
folk to use RIP in today's networks, despite the size of 
their business (I hold workshops myself, I know) - because 
this stuff sticks.

The most I tend to say about RIP - don't use it! In addition 
to the "other way" we we tend to describe it.

> (And yes, I've seen people overextending themselves with
>  OSPF...)

So tell them to ignore all those knobs the industry has 
added to the spec. They don't need (m)any of them.

If you're having problems stuffing enough useful information 
about link state routing protocols into your tutorials, I'd, 
respectfully, look at working on that instead.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100601/e6a2fdd8/attachment-0001.bin