The use of RIPng

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 6/1/2010 9:50 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent:
>> Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:11 AM To: Jürgen Becker Cc: Benedikt
>> Stockebrand; ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de Subject: Re: The use of
>> RIPng (was: Re: So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses"a problem
>> anyway?)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> FUD.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> What do you mean "were"?  If you own Brocade/Foundry SuperX units and
> want to run v6 layer 3 you need to buy special blades AND pay a
> premium license fee. Any networks unlucky enough to have purchased
> any of that kit over the past few years are suddenly feeling this
> burning sensation on their seat if they are considering v6 migration.

Then they were stupid.  You can take that with a grain of salt because
we don't own any of that stuff, but IPv6 has been out for what, the last
decade?  And your just now getting around to including it as a 
requirement in your RFPs?

Those orgs are just paying the deserved "stupid tax" IMHO.

Feel free to sling arrows, I'll listen to the sputtering justifications, 
but the fact remains you saved money by dropping what
should have been a mandated spec from your RFP 5 years ago when you
bought the stuff, and now your whining that they want more money.  Uh huh.

> I use RIPng only for "next hop" information where I redistribute
> connected links from my external peering connections among my BGP
> routers.  Internally we use OSPF.
>

Yeah, well as an ISP, we have a few elderly 56K total control chassis
that only speak RIP also so we have run it too - but I certainly don't
run around -boasting- about it!

Ted