bairdc
06-10-2005, 11:13 AM
Well, out of frustration from all my OSPF problems (the router-id thing didn't seem to help), I've configured RIPv2 and have it up and working on my network now in parallel with OSPF. My initial intention was to configure RIP and turn off OSPF, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't hurt to just run them both.
My problem with OSPF has been that routes sometimes disappear from the routing table, and they don't reappear for about 30 minutes (I'm assuming when OSPF does its link state update). My thinking is that since OSPF has a lower administrative distance value, its routes will be preferred when they are there. However, in the event that an OSPF route disappears, the RIP-derived route would take its place until the OSPF route comes back.
Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone can think of any caveats I need to look at in doing this. Obviously, I realize that there will be more load placed on the routers, and more bandwidth will be utilized to do the routing updates. However, aside from that I can't think of any downsides to doing this. Does anyone have any input on whether this is a good idea or not?
Craig
My problem with OSPF has been that routes sometimes disappear from the routing table, and they don't reappear for about 30 minutes (I'm assuming when OSPF does its link state update). My thinking is that since OSPF has a lower administrative distance value, its routes will be preferred when they are there. However, in the event that an OSPF route disappears, the RIP-derived route would take its place until the OSPF route comes back.
Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone can think of any caveats I need to look at in doing this. Obviously, I realize that there will be more load placed on the routers, and more bandwidth will be utilized to do the routing updates. However, aside from that I can't think of any downsides to doing this. Does anyone have any input on whether this is a good idea or not?
Craig