: Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:39 a.m.
To: Tim Franklin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
On 1 October 2010 12:19, Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Or BGP. Why not?
Of course, technically you could use almost any routing protocol.
OSPF and IS-IS would require more
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 04:28:30PM +, Tim Franklin wrote:
Leaf-node BGP config is utterly trivial [...]
The Enterprise guys really need to get out of the blanket BGP is scary
mindset
It's not just enterprise mindset. Over the years I've seen a lot of
deployed gear that either didn't
the know-how.
Jonathon
-Original Message-
From: Heath Jones [mailto:hj1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 2 October 2010 12:39 a.m.
To: Tim Franklin
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
On 1 October 2010 12:19, Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Or BGP. Why not?
Of course
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:56 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/30/2010 8:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have no NAT whatsoever in my home network. RIP is not at all useful in my
scenario.
I have multiple routers in my home network. They use a combination of BGP
and OSPFv3.
Except you must
On Sep 30, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Heath Jones wrote:
On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as
Why would you run dynamic to simple CPE at all?
Static route that stuff through DHCP or RADIUS and move on.
If you need dynamic routing across administrative boundaries, that's not a good
place
for RIP, that's a good place for BGP.
Owen
On Sep 30, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Guerra, Ruben wrote:
I am
RIPv2 is great for simple route injection. I'm talking really simple,
just to avoid statics.
And there, my friend, is the crux of the matter. There's almost no place
imagineable where injecting routes from RIPv2 is superior to statics.
Well, let me stimulate your imagination..
IPVPN cloud
Now, when traffic comes from head office destined for a site prefix,
it hits the provider gear. That provider gear will need routing
information to head to a particular site. If you wanted to use
statics, you will need to fill out a form each time you add/remove a
prefix for a site and the
On 1 October 2010 12:19, Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
Or BGP. Why not?
Of course, technically you could use almost any routing protocol.
OSPF and IS-IS would require more configuration and maintenance, BGP
even more still.
I think this is a pretty good example though of how RIPv2 is
On 10/1/2010 4:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The average home user cannot configure RIP. What is your point?
Last linksys I looked at had a checkbox. All done.
RIP has no loop prevention and is suboptimal depending on the configuration
that things get plugged in.
Damn. You mean the split
to announce their own
space or wants multi-homed connection def use BGP.
-Ruben
-Original Message-
From: Tim Franklin [mailto:t...@pelican.org]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 6:19 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
Now, when traffic comes from head office destined
- Ruben Guerra ruben.gue...@arrisi.com wrote:
Using BGP would be overkill for most. Many small commercial customers
to not want the complexity of BGP
This one keeps coming up.
Leaf-node BGP config is utterly trivial, and is much easier for the SP to
configure the necessary safety devices
Tim hit the nail on the head. Maintaining statics on a large network would
become a huge problem. Human error will eventually occur. The network
scenario I am speaking of is DSL/Cable type setups, where a customer could
move from router to router(DSLAM/CMTS) due to capacity re-combines.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's
to peer in large scale networks such as the internet. A far
I think BGP is better for that job, ultimately because it was
specifically designed for that job, but also because it's now
available
in commodity routers for commodity prices e.g. Cisco 800 series.
+1 - for me, if I need a dynamic routing protocol between trust /
administrative domains,
On 9/29/2010 3:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
Home networks when dual NAT isn't being used. It's also the perfect
protocol for v6 on home networks where multiple home routers might be
connected in a variety of ways.
Shocked I
On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/29/2010 3:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
Home networks when dual NAT isn't being used. It's also the perfect protocol
for v6 on home networks where multiple home routers
One would assume you aren't doing this for nostalgic reasons. At least
I would hope that!
Like anything, if you decide to vary outside the 'accepted norms', then
have a reason for it! Understand your technology, understand your
topology (re: before about RIP not needing peered neighbors
On 9/30/10 12:57 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin [1]na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is
On 9/30/2010 8:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I have no NAT whatsoever in my home network. RIP is not at all useful in my
scenario.
I have multiple routers in my home network. They use a combination of BGP and
OSPFv3.
Except you must configure those things. The average home user cannot.
If
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Mark Smith
na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:15:45 -0500
William McCall william.mcc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin
ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
Using BGP to
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:48 -0700
Jesse Loggins jlogginsc...@gmail.com wrote:
OSPF. It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old
antiquated protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet never
to be seen or heard from again. Some even preferred using a more
complex protocol
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where
RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really
die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...
My $0.02,
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, John Kristoff
RIP cannot also be used for traffic engineering; so if you want MPLS
then you MUST use either OSPF or ISIS. RIP, like any other distance
vector protocol, converges extremely slowly - so if you want faster
convergence then you have to use one of ISIS or OSPF.
Glen
-Original Message-
From: Jack Carrozzo
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:44 AM
To: John Kristoff
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered
where
RIP
On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where
RIP would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really
die-hard, IS-IS. Let it die...
But what about all
Yes, clearly the next crowd of CCNAs will save the world. You know what they
say about giving CCNAs enable...
-Jack
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tvwrote:
On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
Dynamic routing is hard, let's go shopping.
Seriously though, I can't think of a topology I've ever encountered where RIP
would have made more sense than OSPF or BGP, or if you're really die-hard,
IS-IS. Let it die...
I was just curious - why would IS-IS be more die-hard than OSPF or iBGP?
Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg
I was just curious - why would IS-IS be more die-hard than OSPF or iBGP?
It's like running apps on Solaris and Oracle these days instead of Linux
and MySQL. Both options work if you know what you're doing, but it's way
easier (and cheaper) to hire admins for the latter.
When was the last
Maybe I WAY under-read the initial poster's question, but I was pretty
sure he wasn't talking about running it as a CORE routing protocol or
anything on the middle of their network where MPLS would be expected on
top of it!
If I missed it and he did intend that, then I'd certainly agree with you
On 9/30/2010 3:32 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
When was the last time you ran into a younger neteng designing his topology
who went Yes! IS-IS!? It works fine (very well in fact) but it's just less
used.
Which makes no sense to me. I originally looked at both and thought OSPF
to be inferior to
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
prefixes. Those numbers can be debated as you like, but I think if you
On 30 September 2010 22:11, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
As it was explained to me, the main difference is that you can have $lots of
prefixes in IS-IS without it falling over, whereas Dijkstra is far more
resource-intensive and as such OSPF doesn't get too happy after $a_lot_less
Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my take on it..
Sorry, my mistake. I'll go sit in my corner now...
-Jack
Haha It's all good :)
You are right about IS-IS being less resource intensive than OSPF, and
that it scales better!
On 30 September 2010 23:50, Jack Carrozzo j...@crepinc.com wrote:
Both OSPF and IS-IS use Dijkstra. IS-IS isn't as widely used because
of the ISO addressing. Atleast thats my
I am with Scott on this one.. I took the initial question as a focus on the
edge... not the CORE. RIP is perfect for the edge to commercial CPEs. Why would
want to run OSPF/ISIS at the edge. I would hope that it would be common
practice to not use RIP in the CORE
peace
--
Ruben Guerra
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a protocol like OSPF. It seems that many Network Engineers
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
and I'm
not a big fan of OSPF.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Loggins [mailto:jlogginsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RIP Justification
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols
IPVPN arrangement with multiple sites no redundancy for each small site.
RIP to advertise networks from each site towards cloud, quick and easy.
Loss of using VLSM's is a big thing to give up.
You can go to RIPv2 and get that however. Would work for small networks to
stay under the hop-count limit as it is still distance-vector.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM,
the ability to use variable bit masks
(CIDR) and faster routing algorithms like DUAL used in Cisco routers and
I'm
not a big fan of OSPF.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Loggins [mailto:jlogginsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RIP
-Original Message-
From: Gary Gladney
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:29 PM
To: 'Jesse Loggins'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: RIP Justification
with RIP you do lose the ability to use variable bit
masks
(CIDR) and faster routing algorithms like DUAL used in Cisco routers
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:20:48 -0400, Jesse Loggins jlogginsc...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems that many Network Engineers consider RIP an old antiquated
protocol that should be thrown in back of a closet never to be seen or
heard from again.
That is the correct way to think about RIP. (RIPv1
On 29 Sep 2010 15:20, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a protocol
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the
only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static
IP clients had to be able to land anywhere -- but RIP only lived on
the local segment, OSPF took over
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
I am referring to RIPv2
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Heath Jones hj1...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - just to clarify, are you talking about v1 or v2? There is also
a proposal for v3..
In my previous post, I was assuming v2.
--
Jesse Loggins
CCIE#14661 (RS, Service Provider)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:53:40 -0700
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
The 1% where it was a necessary evil... dialup networking where the
only routing protocol supported was RIP (v2) [netblazers] -- static
IP clients had
Thus spake Jesse Loggins (jlogginsc...@gmail.com) on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at
01:20:48PM -0700:
This leads to my question. What are your views of when and
where the RIP protocol is useful?
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things
On 29/09/2010 22:36, Dale W. Carder wrote:
I most often see RIPv2 used simply to avoid paying vendor license fees to run
more sophisticated things such as OSPF.
The good thing about vendors who charge license fees to run more
sophisticated things such as OSPF is that there are always other
[mailto:jlogginsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 30 September 2010 9:21 a.m.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RIP Justification
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very
We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was better,
and it works well..
I could discuss it more with you off-line if you like.
On Sep 29, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Jesse Loggins
where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the =
incorrect
forum for such questions.
RIP has one property no modern protocol has. It works on simplex =
links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with low-speed terrestrial =
uplink).
Is that useful? I don't know,
Thanks Joe!
You just added a new term to my vocabulary!
Technical Correctness
I think I'm going to go out of my way now to use this in the office... =)
From: jgr...@ns.sol.net
Subject: Re: RIP Justification
To: patr...@ianai.net
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:24:59 -0500
CC: nanog
This is why they need a 'like' button on nanog!! :)
I once had cause to write a RIP broadcast daemon while on-site with a
client; they had some specific brokenness with a Novell server and some
other gear that was fixed by a UNIX box, a C compiler, and maybe 20
or 30 minutes of programming
Subject: RIP Justification
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use
for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a protocol like OSPF
On 9/29/2010 at 4:24 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
where the RIP protocol is useful? Please excuse me if this is the =
incorrect
forum for such questions.
RIP has one property no modern protocol has. It works on simplex =
links (e.g. high-speed satellite downlink with
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BGP was designed for unique AS's
to
I think you're right that everything has its' place. But you gotta
know where that is and why you choose it!
RIP(v2) is great in that there aren't neighbor relationships, so you can
shoot routes around in a semi-sane-haphazard fashion if need be.
Whatever your reality you exist in like
On Sep 29, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jesse Loggins wrote:
A group of engineers and I were having a design discussion about routing
protocols including RIP and static routing and the justifications of use for
each protocol. One very interesting discussion was surrounding RIP and its
use versus a
the routes into
whatever routing protocol they use in their own networks.
Jonathon
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Loggins [mailto:jlogginsc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 30 September 2010 9:21 a.m.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RIP Justification
A group of engineers and I were
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
But anything, ask why you are using it. To exchange routes, yes... but
how many. Is sending those every 30 seconds good? Sure, tweak it. But
are you gaining anything over static routes?
For simple networks, RIP(v2, mind you) works fine.
hi, I summarize the discussion in my way. Please add or fix it.
* RIP works okay in topologies without topological loops.
I would like to elaborate the term small networks in RIP works
well in small networks.
Specifically the term small network would mean:
1) the diameter of the
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:26:17 -0400
Craig cvulja...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a design for our wan where we use rip v2 and it works very well, we
were using ospf but it was additional config, so in our case simple was
better, and it works well..
I'm don't really buy the extra config
On Sep 29, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Christopher Gatlin wrote:
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted networks is
like using a
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
very commonly used for point-to-point non-edge links, you can eliminate
that delay and also the corresponding network
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:31:26 -0500
Christopher Gatlin ch...@travelingtech.net wrote:
My point here is untrusted networks, such as business partners exchanging
routes with each other. Not many hops and less than a 100 prefixes.
Using BGP to exchange routes between these types of untrusted
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:13:11 +1000
Julien Goodwin na...@studio442.com.au wrote:
On 30/09/10 13:42, Mark Smith wrote:
One of the large delays you see in OSPF is election of the designated
router on multi-access links such as ethernets. As ethernet is being
very commonly used for
70 matches
Mail list logo
