The use of RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?)
mtinka at globaltransit.net
Tue Jun 1 18:10:59 CEST 2010
On Tuesday 01 June 2010 11:47:44 pm Jürgen Becker wrote:
> 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.
RFC 1812, final paragraph of section 7.2.1:
"A router that implements any routing protocol (other than
static routes) MUST IMPLEMENT OSPF (see Section [7.2.2]).
A router MAY implement additional IGPs."
Of course we all know that what the RFC's suggest and what
happens on the ground may be vastly apart but I'd be hard-
pressed to find a decent vendor out there that won't do OSPF
in some way or form. Even Cisco's 800 series routers will
happily do OSPF, and you can pick those up off E-Bay for a
couple of bucks.
If you need more horse-power from your router, chances are
it supports OSPF.
> advanced routing you have to buy licenses and/or more
> expensive hardware.
What we're seeing now is vendors that "were" charging for
IPv6 since it was considered an "advanced feature". This
included OSPFv3 (more reason to use IS-IS). However, some
vendors have now put a US$0.00 cost on IPv6 and its related
features, while the rest have began dropping back as well.
Of course, if you buy a so-called Layer 3 switch (because it
gives you cheap Ethernet ports) and get asked to pay
additional for IP routing, while I wouldn't agree with it, I
wouldn't fault them. You bought a switch, after all.
And you don't need a Juniper MX960 or a Cisco ASR9000 to run
OSPF. Heck, if you really are averse to paying vendors,
download a copy of Quagga :-).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100602/8382da1b/attachment.bin
More information about the ipv6-ops