So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Nick Hilliard]

On 31/05/2010 17:47, Mark Tinka wrote:
> I probably wouldn't go around saying RIP is better to deploy 
> than a link-state routing protocol (despite the "balance 
> between easy-to-handle simplicity and ultimate performance 
> complexity" quote), but I gather that isn't the gist of this 
> thread.

Ironically, there is little difference between a router multicasting RA
"hello, i'm a candidate default gateway" notifications every 300ms - 1800s
and a RIP router broadcasting "hello, i'm a candidate default gateway"
every 30s.

We learned in the 1980s that it was a bad idea to have uncontrolled
announcements like this with RIP.  I don't understand why we forgot that
lesson.

Nick