Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:22:07 +0000 email@example.com fuream loqour :
If your network is of a scale where it exceeds the utility of static,
then, it is almost certainly of a scale
and topology where it exceeds the utility of RIP.
I'd agree that RIP is old, aged, and we all can probably go on with
personal horror stories of how a broadcast-only-based routing protocol
created a small or large pocket of disaster alone or combined with some
other technology below or above its layer in the stack.
However, like some other speakers in this thread mentioned, situation +
simplicity + engineering = success. RIP certainly has it's place in
small pockets now, I still use it in places mostly just to float a few
loopbacks or statics around with old equipment, or firewalls I don't
trust doing a more robust routing protocol.
I see routing protocols, operating systems too, as different tools. If
the tool works, fits, and rarely breaks where it's used, cool - I like
simple & predictable, which includes predictable failure as well as
predictable success. RIP also has the advantage of being around for a
long while, so most devices will "get it right" - more complex routing
protocol code, found in other IGPs, etc. - exceptions / vendor
implementations still rule.
I've never done a multicast network with RIP though... *winks* =)