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

[Jürgen Becker]

On Jun 1, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:

> 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.

There is one simple reason why RIP is still used and why it most likely will be used in the future:
RIP is cheaper then OSPF etc., because most hardware vendor consider it basic routing and include it for free. For advanced routing you have to buy licenses and/or more expensive hardware.


> 
>> (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.


Regards, 

Jürgen