The use of RIPng

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 06:50:01AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 18:08:01 +0000
> bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> >  Morning Nick....
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 06:29:51PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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:
> > 
> > 	if you run a routing protocol on an end-station - you've turned it into
> > 	a router...  (much like what happens in some anycast clusters for node
> > 	failover)
> > 
> > > I'm at a loss to see why one is much more difficult than the other.  Can
> > > you explain?
> > 
> > 	your looking at the configuration statements.  what is the cpu/memory
> > 	footprint for the two?
> > 
> 
> I doesn't matter. If you think it does, then you haven't noticed the
> effect of Moore's law.

	yes it does... particularly wrt mobile/embedded devices.
	cpu/memory == power == battery drain.

	as mentioned elsewhere - RIP is perhaps the smallest implementation
	of the D-V routing protocols and compared w/ link-state routing 
	protocols (OSPF etc.), distance-vector routing protocols have less 
	computational complexity and message overhead.  ergo smaller resource
	constraints == more efficant.  

	Just saying that there is a place for D-V in the world, its not
	just Link-state.  Folks should (and do) use what works for them.

	As usual, YMMV.

--bill