NIL's New Year E-Learning promotion: Save 30% on all Remote labs and e-learning courses purchased before January 31st 2009. Click here for more details.

RIP rocks in low-end hub-and-spoke networks

Yesterday I’ve introduced a scenario where RIP would (in my opinion) work much better than OSPF. If you were not persuaded by the “management-level” arguments, let’s focus on the technical details (but make sure you read the scenario first).

All you ever want to advertise to the remote sites in this design is the default route (or a network-wide summary). Alternatively, you might want to advertise only a route to a central LAN or server. Both requirements are easily met with RIP per-interface output filters. Doing something similar with OSPF is close to impossible. Either you place every remote site into a separate OSPF area (don’t even think about doing it; there could be hundreds of sites) or the routes within an area will leak between the remote sites.

RIP is also more stable than OSPF in this setup. Whenever a remote site disappears, the change in the OSPF area is unnecessarily propagated to all other remote sites in the same area. RIP doesn’t react at all; the output route filter at the central site stops all unnecessary updates.

As you know, OSPF requires hello packets and adjacencies to work properly. The central hub router must therefore track the adjacency states of hundreds of neighbors. When using RIP, the central router couldn’t care less … it sends out its routes every so often, collects whatever comes back and reports when a new remote route is received or an old one disappears.

6 comments:

Michael said...

I'd much rather use EIGRP stub

uri said...

EIGRP stub feature does *NOT* prevent hub router from advertising all information to spokes -- you have to use distribute-list or summarization up to 0/0. I'd choose OSPF w/ "ip ospf database-filter all out" to reduce flooding in hub-n-spoke environment.

Ivan Pepelnjak said...

@Michael: you might not have EIGRP on remote (low-end, low-cost) routers.

@Uri: RIP has exactly the same configuration overhead as EIGRP; you have to configure summary or default route advertisement.

uri said...

Sure.. It does have the same overhead. Btw, living in the all-cisco world may be we should start "ODR vs proto-X" flame?

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_white_paper09186a0080093fde.shtml

:)

js said...

In a very large (hundreds of spokes) dual-homed remote RIP environment, what's the convergence time for a primary hub failure? I poked around looking for information on this, but didn't find anything.

Ivan Pepelnjak said...

@uri: Don't worry, I could start the ODR religious war ... I just need to figure out a good provocative intro.

@js: regardless of the number of spoke routers, the convergence time always depends on RIP timers.

You might have interesting problems sending a huge number of RIP updates from the hub router, though.

Post a Comment

Ivan Pepelnjak, CCIE#1354, is the chief technology advisor for NIL Data Communications. He has been designing and implementing large-scale data communications networks as well as teaching and writing books about advanced technologies since 1990. See his full profile, contact him or visit his page on Facebook.