Seb
Thank you for providing a real world example of an implementation of RIPng. I suspect that a large part of the motivation was that there needed to be a routing function of Linux devices. That pretty much eliminates the possibility of using EIGRP and it may very well be that OSPF was a stretch. I have been involved in some customer networks where there were devices in the network where the vendor did not provide support for EIGRP or for OSPF but did provide support for RIP. So there are instances where device compatibility comes into play when choosing a routing protocol.
There have been a couple of responses which have expressed the opinion that the poster would certainly prefer to use EIGRP or OSPF. I am confident that these opinions came from people who have developed skills in working in complex environments and that need sophisticated network engineers. And for those organizations it is generally true that more sophisticated routing protocols are preferred. But there are organizations out there whose networks are not so large and not so complicated and for whom a simple, easy to implement, does not take much analysis routing protocol is appropriate. I have worked for a couple of them. Think about light weight protocols, perhaps TFTP and FTP are examples. If we are transferring lots of data where efficiency of transfer, and lots of operational parameters can be used to optimize operation, then clearly FTP is the better protocol. So why do so many of us use TFTP so much when FTP is the more capable protocol? It is because it is more light weight, simpler to operate, and it gets the job done. Perhaps we can think about routing protocols in the same way.
HTH
Rick
HTH
Rick
