Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

RIP vs. static routes?

Hello-->

General opinion....

If you had 3 routers....would you bother enabling IGRP or RIP if they each only had 4 or 5 static routes each?

-->jason

9 REPLIES
Silver

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

It would depend on the topology, if you had redundant paths (i.e. R1 -> R2 -> R3 -> R1) you would need to run a dynamic routing protocol in able to recover from a link failure. However if you have a simple string topology (R1 -> R2 -> R3) with no redundancy then static routing would be more than adequate.

New Member

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

A non-technical opinion...

Dynamic routing is easy to do

IGRP is flexible and a standard

You never know what the future network will look like. If you build even the simplist network to a flexible high standard, two or three years down the road, you are still building on a good foundation. To try and support and later convert a static network that has grown can be a daunting task.

Also, some technologies are not easily/not supported in a static network.

IMHO....

New Member

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

Could you give me some examples of those technologies?

Thanks,

J

Silver

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

IGRP is not a standard it is Cisco proprietary

New Member

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

Yes, I know....are you answering the question though? Re: what technologies don't work/easily work in a static environment?

-->jason

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

The most convincing argument is probably that a routing protocol can make the network change its routing in case of a failure. With statics, it is all or nothing. So I would prefer using a routing protocol whenever possible.

New Member

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

Sounds good to me....thanks for the advice.

Might be time to implement IGRP.

-->jason

New Member

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

The technologies that I would consider hard to implement in a static network would be any of the dynamic fail over technologies... backup interface, dialer watch, HSRP. This is not to say they can not be done, just I would consider it more difficult.

Plus as the network expands, keeping track of all the statics could become a bear.

The poster was correct, IGRP is Cisco proprietary. OSPF, RIP2, IS-IS could be used as routing protocols that are not vendor specific. Also, today you would use EIGRP rather than IGRP. You would need to evaluate what each protocol offers and make you choice that way.

Here is a link on EIGRP that is a good starting point.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm

New Member

Re: RIP vs. static routes?

Have I mentioned how helpful this place is?

This forum is the greatest.

Thanks for the help.

-->jason

3413
Views
0
Helpful
9
Replies
CreatePlease to create content