routed && route6d removal proposal

[Eugene Grosbein]

24.06.2020 15:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:

> Different people have different opinions :-)
> Let me rephrase the point I'm trying to make: RIP original design was created a long time ago. The current landscape is different: there are multiple protocols that are superset of RIP. There are multiple implementations of these protocols that are easily available. The configuration is not non-zero, but simple.
> Even further, more and more want their protocol daemon to have an api - and that makes implementations like goBGP extremely popular, moving people from "traditional" routing suites/daemons.
> With all that in mind, I see RIP popularity and usage going in only one direction.

Btw, I do use RIPv2 in production these days (but with ripd, not routed) and I have several reasons to do so.

First, RIPv2 is distance-vector protocol and has some advantages over OSPF for small-diameter
but geographically distributed network (dictinct cities inter-connected with tunnels)
as it does not require existence of "inseparable" backbone. RIPv2 offers richer ways to route filtering
and/or preferring that you can achieve with OSPF only if you create distinct area for each router :-)

Next, with years I came to decision running both OSPF and RIPv2 in parallel without route redistribution.
This doubles my work initially at configuration stage but provides me with some protection against software failures.
I can easily stop, debug and restart one of routing daemons while another one still runs
so network has connectivity.