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

Mark Tinka mtinka at
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.

>  For
>  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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : 

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list