Re: "Several Hundred RIP Routes"
Alex Rubenstein (alex@planet.net)
Fri, 24 Nov 1995 23:16:35 -0500 (EST)
> > If your network is configured with 'several hundred rip routes', you
> > should be more concerned on how inefficient your network is and not the
> > PM's abailty to store routes.
>
> I'd be interested to know what, besides a complete lack of networking
> knowledge, makes you believe that a network with several hundred
> routes distributed via RIP is inefficient.
>
> There is no reason for a network with "several hundred RIP routes"
> to be inefficient. I've worked on quite large (50-60 sites world-wide,
> hundreds of networks) internetworks that used RIP for routing, and
> worked just fine. And the ciscos we used had no trouble with such
> large routing tables, probably because they tiny in comparison to
> your average Internet border router.
> don't support OSPF, making migration just a bit of a hassle.
BTW: livingston will have OSPF shortly (at least that is what I heard)..
for an ISP, there is no reason to have RIP used at all unless you have
users with static ip's.. and then RIp is only needed if they can float
between portmasters.
RIP, as you know, is the most archaic routing prot out there -- that was
the basis of my statement. Secondly, the possibility of a rip runaraound
(what we call them here) of occuring is high (where routes get all messed
up and you have to reboot the routers to maintain order).