Is the RIP Protocol doomed to be eliminated?

As the "originator" of the routing protocol, we can see that more is its disadvantage. With the continuous development of the Network, some of its functions and restrictions can no longer meet people's needs. Although the RIP Protocol has a long history, it still has its own restrictions. it is very suitable for the early Internet computing routing; however, technological advances have greatly changed the way the Internet is built and used. therefore, RIP will soon be eliminated by today's interconnected networks.

The maximum limits of RIP are:

◆ The path longer than 15 hops is not supported.

◆ Route calculation relies on fixed metrics.

◆ Strong response to route update.

◆ Relatively slow convergence.

◆ Lack of dynamic and negative balancing support.

Hop count limit

RIP is designed for a relatively small autonomous system. in this way, it sets a strict Number of hops to 1 5. when a packet is forwarded by a routing device, its hop count counter will add the cost of the link to be forwarded. if the packet still fails to reach its addressing destination after the hop count reaches 1 5, the destination is considered inaccessible and the packet is discarded.

This effectively fixes the maximum network diameter to 15 hops. it depends on how to intelligently design the network. This value is large enough to build a fairly large network. However, compared with other more modern routing protocols, RIP is still subject to strict restrictions. therefore, if the network you want to build has many features but is not very small, the RIP Protocol may not be the right choice.

Fixed measurement

The discussion of the number of hops paves the way for examining the next basic limit of RIP, which is a fixed consumption measurement. although the consumption metrics can be configured by the Administrator, they are static in nature. RIP cannot update them in real time to adapt to changes in the network. the consumption metrics defined by the Administrator remain unchanged until they are manually updated.

This means that RIP is particularly unsuitable for highly dynamic networks. In such an environment, routes must be calculated in real time to reflect changes in network conditions. for example, if the network supports time-sensitive applications, it is reasonable to use a protocol that can calculate routes based on measurable Transmission Line latency or load conditions on a given line. the RIP protocol uses fixed metrics, so it cannot support real-time route computing.

Strong response to route table updates

The RIP node will broadcast its route table untoward every 3 0 seconds. In a large network with many nodes, this will consume a considerable amount of bandwidth.

Slow convergence

From the perspective of people, it is not inconvenient to wait 3 0 seconds for an update. however, routers and computers run at a much faster speed than humans. you have to wait 3 to 0 seconds for an update, which has obvious negative results. this can be found in Chapter 1 2. see section 3.

It is more destructive than simply waiting for 3 0 seconds for an update, but you have to wait for 1 8 0 seconds to invalidate a route. this is only the amount of time required for a router to begin convergence. the number of interconnected routers and their topology may need to be updated to completely converge to the new topology. slow convergence of RIP routers creates many opportunities for invalid routes to be broadcast incorrectly as valid routes. obviously, this will reduce network performance. this should fully show the risks caused by the slow convergence of the RIP Protocol.

Lack of Load Balancing

Another obvious disadvantage of RIP is its lack of dynamic load balancing capabilities. figure 1 shows the serial connection between two routers. ideally, the router in the figure will allocate traffic to the two serial links as equal as possible. this minimizes the congestion on the two links and optimizes the performance.

Figure 1 router with redundant serial links

Unfortunately, RIP cannot perform such dynamic load balancing. it uses a first known physical link. it forwards all packets on this link, even if the second link is available. the only way to change this is that the vro in Figure 1 receives a route update to notify it of a metric change to any destination. if the update indicates that the second link to the destination has the lowest cost, it will stop using the first link and use the second link.

RIP lacks the capability of Server Load balancer to restrict its use in small networks. A simple network usually features almost no redundant routing. therefore, Server Load balancer is not a design requirement and is not supported.

Summary

The easy-to-configure, flexible, and easy-to-use features of RIP make it a very successful routing protocol. since its development, RIP has made great strides in computing, networking, and interconnection technologies. the accumulation effect of these advances makes RIP a popular protocol. in fact, many of the routing protocols used today are more advanced than RIP. although these protocols are successful, RIP is still a very useful Routing Protocol, provided that it understands the actual meaning of its shortcomings and can be used correctly.