On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 05:41:32AM -0700, Eric Fort wrote:
Why is having rip routes sent from multiple places such a BAD thing?
It's not, as long as they have the same information. We've actually discussed having the portal send rip44 as well, since it would be working from the same encap database as amprgw.
Is it not a GOOD thing to have a choice on multiple redundant routes from one place on the mesh to another?
It might be but rip44 doesn't have that capability; if you receive different routes from different rip44 senders they'll just flap back and forth because there can only be one route to a destination at a time.
It could be considered an error to think of the encap table entry as a 'route'; it's really a list of endpoints, and there is only one endpoint per subnet possible in its definition. Rip44 is simply a way of transmitting the encap table, not setting routes to those endpoints. The actual routing is done by the standard operation of Internet routing protocols at the "outer" encapsulation level.
everyone in the mesh ought to be running a dynamic routing protocol thus increasing redundancy and reliability.
This is a good idea. I'm not up on the latest RFCs concerning routing in tunneled (VPN, GRE, etc) networks. Do you have a recommendation? - Brian