R.I.P. RIP?

Ron McCarty

The routing information protocol (RIP) is a topic of discussion among network administrators, and whether the protocol still has a place in enterprise networking especially in new deployments instigates many debates. Most network administrators seem to love or hate the protocol, based upon their previous experiences with RIP. Due to the high speed LAN connections and superior switching products, many networks are flattened and include more nodes per logical (IP) network than in the past. Thus, it is argued that with fewer routes per host, static routes on routers are acceptable. Most smaller and mid-sized organizations would typically have several routes for local network, and possibly more for remote locations, with the default route taking care of most routes until the IP traffic gets closer to the edge or egress of the network.

Furthermore, Layer 2 redundancy provides many of the features on local area networks that were served with redundant Layer 3 paths in previous generation networks. I tend to agree with these arguments, and have seen this trend and implemented (or helped implement) such a structure to simplify management of networks. Figure 1 depicts such a network.

The weakness with such a solution occurs when it is forced upon an organization that, although relatively small, has a complex network. Remote offices, ExtraNets, multiple Internet gateways, VPN gateways, and instant complex networks created by mergers require a solution that is both manageable, easy to learn, and supported on a wide range of networking equipment.

Many of us are tempted to use the latest tool to create the solution. However, modern but more complex routing protocols, such as Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), may not be the best choice, especially when legacy equipment or limited IT support are issues.<>