The use of RIPng

Nick Hilliard nick at
Tue Jun 1 19:29:51 CEST 2010

On 01/06/2010 18:07, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
> that's a bit of a pain involved there.  Additionally, it is
> recommended not to run it on a machine that does anything else, mostly
> because the init scripts (or equivalent) and Quagga tend to interfere
> with each other.


>> 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.
> Valid point.  And I agree that moving from RIP to OSPF is a rather
> gory business


> hosts, 2--3 routers).  To them, RIP makes life easier while OSPF is an
> undefused bomb.


> Doing a three day course on OSPF alone is fine, but stuffing OSPF into
> a three day course on IPv6 is just running people into trouble.

I have found that I don't need to understand the finer points of internal
combustion mechanics, spark plug design and exhaust muffling technology in
order to drive down to the shop to buy a loaf of bread.

Ok, let me spell it out.  If you're running a routing protocol on your
end-user workstations, you're probably doing it wrong.  If you're running a
routing protocol on your routers, then it goes like this:

RIP configuration:

router rip
 version 2
 redistribute connected
 redistribute static
 default-information originate
 passive-interface FastEthernetX/Y

or OSPF:

router ospf 1
 redistribute connected subnets
 redistribute static subnets
 default-information originate
 network a.b.c.0 area 0
 passive-interface FastEthernetX/Y

The configuration parameters are similarly difficult for RIPng and OSPFv3,
or if you use Quagga instead of IOS, or JunOS instead of Quagga.

I'm at a loss to see why one is much more difficult than the other.  Can
you explain?

This thread is becoming too bizarre for words, but for some reason, I can't
seem to pull myself away from it.  Maybe don't explain after all.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list