I believe you believe OSPF is better than RIP. Probably in almost all cases, it is.
You ask is there a better alternative than OSPF. That's an "it depends" answer. Without much more information, cannot suggest a better alternative, but in general, usually there would need to be compelling reasons or requirements to choose another routing protocol.
In the type of networks that OSPF is commonly used, perhaps its direct competitor is EIGRP. The most critical difference between the two is OSPF is a public standard while EIGRP is Cisco proprietary.
IS-IS has been suggested, but it's rather uncommon in Enterprise networks, so much so, Enterprise (or SMB) network devices often won't support it.
BGP, for multiple reasons, I won't detail here, is usually not considered a good routing protocol for an IGP.
As to how to configure OSPF, its network statements are often misunderstood especially compared to other routing protocols.
(This is also described in another recent reply, but perhaps my examples will make it a bit clearer.)
OSPF network statements do NOT advertise networks. They match against interface IPs. If an interface's IP matches an OSPF network statement, the interface's network is advertised in the network statement's area.
As an example, given:
Interface x
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
Any of the following (and other correctly formatted) OSPF network statements will advertise 192.168.1.0/24:
network 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 area #
network 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 area #
network 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 area #
network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area #
Also, later routers support the OSPFv3 approach of:
Interface x
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip ospf # area #
In the above, the last network statement, would match ALL the interfaces (same VRF, if using VRFs), on the device.
I.e.
network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area 0
might be used instead of:
However, if you're concerned about matching unintended interfaces, but still want to reduce network statements, you could . . .
network 10.28.2.0 0.0.1.255 area 0
network 10.212.134.0 0.0.1.255 area 0
rather than
network 10.28.2.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 10.28.3.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 10.212.134.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 10.122.135.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
Again, OSPF network statements match against interface IPs. The matched interface's IP and mask, determine the network advertised in OSPF.
Oh, and it's possible, when using different areas, say on an ABR, to overlap network statements, as the more specific will match first.
For example, perhaps something like:
network 10.28.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 28
network 10.212.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 212
network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area 0
The RIP protocol is indeed an older and simpler interior gateway protocol, and there are indeed far better alternatives to it in modern medium-sized or more complex networks.
Part One: Is there a better alternative to OSPF?
The answer is yes. Which protocol you choose depends on your network size, complexity, and specific requirements.
The following are much better mainstream interior gateway protocols than RIP and are OSPF's main competitors:
1.EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol) - Cisco proprietary, but now partially open
Advantages:
· Very fast convergence: Using the Diffusion Update Algorithm (DUAL), when the best path fails, one of the alternative paths can be selected immediately without recalculation, and the convergence rate is the fastest of the three.
· Low resource consumption: incremental updates, sending only changed routes, saving bandwidth and CPU resources.
· Simpler configuration than OSPF: closer to RIP, no areas to define, easier to use.
Disadvantages:
Traditionally a Cisco proprietary agreement. Although Cisco has partially opened it to Informational RFC, compatibility may still be inferior to OSPF in mixed environments with multi-vendor devices such as Huawei, H3C, and Juniper.
Conclusion: If your network environment is a Cisco-based device, EIGRP is often the best alternative to RIP, providing a good balance of performance and simplicity.
2.IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System Protocol)
Advantages:
· Like OSPF, it is a link-state protocol, converges quickly, and has no loop.
· Excellent scalability, preferred for large carrier networks and large data centers (e.g. Internet backbone, Google, Facebook internal network).
· The protocol is elegant and simple, runs directly above the data link layer, and is easier to extend new features (such as support for IPv6) than OSPF.
Disadvantages:
· Relatively few administrators have the knowledge and experience to underperform the OSPF epidemic in a corporate network.
· The concept of configuration and debugging differs from OSPF in that the learning curve is slightly steep.
Conclusion: If you have a very large network or you want to use carrier-level protocols, IS-IS is a top choice.
Simple Contrast:
Recommendations:
· For multi-vendor device environments, the OSPF is the preferred because it is open standard and has the best compatibility.
· For Cisco-only device environments, the EIGRP can be prioritized for simpler configurations and superior performance.
· For very large-scale networks (or intended to develop), IS-IS can be studied.
Part 2: How would your RIP configuration be written if OSPF was not used?
There is an obvious problem with your current RIP configuration: the network statement is used incorrectly.
Error Analysis:
RIP's network command is followed by a major class network address (A, B, C), not a subnet or network segment. The function of this order is:
1. Enable the RIP process on the interfaces of the specified network segment to start sending and receiving RIP updates.
2. Declare the interface's major class network into RIP routing.
network 10.2.2.0 0.0.0.255 in your configuration This writing with a wildcard mask is in the style of OSPF, not supported by RIP.
Proper configuration method:
Assume that your network address is 10.0.0.0/8, which is a Class A address. When you enter network 10.0.0.0, RIP enables RIP on all interfaces with IP addresses beginning with 10 and declares the entire 10.0.0.0/8 major class network.
Depending on your current configuration intent, you may have a number of 10.x.x.x/24 segments. In RIP version 2, the correct configuration is:
router rip version 2 ! 宣告主类网络地址 network 3.0.0.0 network 4.0.0.0 network 10.0.0.0 ! 这一条会覆盖所有10.0.0.0/8的接口 network 192.168.1.0 network 192.192.20.0 no auto-summary ! 关闭自动汇总，确保发送精确的子网路由 graceful-restart
But, please, pay attention! Using network 10.0.0.0 may enable RIP on interfaces that you do not want, which are also part of 10.0.0.0/8, creating a security risk.
More precise and recommended controls are:
Use the passive-interface command to precisely control which interfaces receive updates only and do not send updates (usually the interface connected to the user's PC), and to explicitly configure on the interfaces that need to establish neighbors.
router rip version 2 network 10.0.0.0 ! 在所有10.x.x.x接口上启用RIP network 3.0.0.0 network 4.0.0.0 network 192.168.1.0 network 192.192.20.0 no auto-summary graceful-restart ! 将不需要发送RIP更新的接口（如连接用户网的接口）设置为被动接口 passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/1 passive-interface GigabitEthernet0/2 ! ... 其他用户接口 ! 对于需要建立邻接关系的接口（如连接其他路由器的接口），确保不要设置为被动接口 ! 默认就是非被动的，所以不需要额外配置
Concluding recommendations:
1. Upgrade is strongly recommended: Based on the number of networks you have announced, your network is already sized. Continuing to use RIP can cause problems such as slow convergence, hop limits (15 hops), and so on. It is strongly recommended that you plan to migrate to OSPF or EIGRP.
2. Fix the current configuration: If RIP must be used temporarily, fix your network statement immediately as described above and use passive-interface to improve security and stability.
