On 1.8.2014, at 4.03, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: >> It seems to me that you are grasping for a use case to justify a split >> where none is needed. Protocols like OSPF, IS-IS and Babel would all >> work in both environments. RIP won't. So this seems more like an >> argument not to use RIP than an argument to have two different homenet >> router profiles. > For the record, can you expound on the technical reason why RIP(v2) won't > work? (I'm not a fan of it, but last time I used it was on SunOS 3 or > something)
RIPng (RFC2080) isn’t source specific, I’m not sure if there’s something more recent on RIP front that is (and is widely implemented available). Obviously, extending RIPng to be source specific would not be hard, but then it wouldn’t be RIP anymore by strict definition (no existing implementations). Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
