Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Based on the Cisco textbooks, link-state routing protocols (e.g. OSPF) are preffered over distance-vector protocols (e.g. RIP) and the reasons cited are typically convergence time and loop prevention. Furthermore, RIPv2 configuration has now been replaced with OSPFv2 in the entry-level Cisco textbooks.

This leaves me with the question, what are the valid reasons to use RIP in a real-world production network?

As far as I know, the usefulness of RIP appears limited to academic reasons or to keep the routing configuration process really simple. Other guesses I had might be for interoperability with legacy routers using RIP, and to maintain a consistent IGP within an AS.

share|improve this question
3  
RIP in a real-world production network - Simple, you have legacy equipment that only supports RIP. Just because the latest/greatest stuff supports OSPF by default doesn't mean the old stuff supports it. –  Zoredache Apr 19 '13 at 22:51
1  
RIP is dead. In fact, as of 2013 edition of CCNA, Cisco has removed RIP from even discussing it. –  Nikolas Sakic Apr 20 '13 at 1:32
1  
@nik - except unfortunately it isn't dead at all. We might wish it is, but Microsoft removed OSPF from their routing tools in 2008, leaving just RIP. it sucks but it now means finding RIP in places you would rather not. –  Mark Henderson Apr 20 '13 at 5:04
    
@MarkHenderson and this is still the case in 2013? –  server-builder Apr 20 '13 at 17:28
1  
You will find RIP in virtually every CPE/consumer level router in the market, especially in 2013, as its lightweight and requires very little power. Not saying you should use it just because its there, but if you have 0 budget... –  Mark Henderson Apr 21 '13 at 5:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.