RIPv2 Routing and a Layer 3 switch
I am kind of wondering whether using RIPv2 between a layer 3 switch instead of static routing will it save me anything. I run pfsense with 1 WAN port and 1 LAN port to a layer 3 Cisco SG300-28 switch using the L3 switch to route VLANs. pfsense is just being used as a firewall. It has been running for couple of years with no problem. If I come across say SG500X with RIP support would it make things easier with pfsense?
How well does RIP work on pfsense? Is anybody doing it?
I guess if I use RIP then when I add a network to the layer3 switch I would need to open a firewall rule to pfsense to allow the network outside. Is this correct?
1st WTF would you want to run a routing protocol that old for?
Do you have a shitton of networks that just pop up on the other side of your layer 3 that your routing ever changes?
So you have downstream from your L3 switch networks that might pop up that you don't currently have routes for? In a typical network that is rfc1918 all you would need is 1 or 2 summary routes depending if running just 1 or all 3 of the rfc1918 networks downstream.
Do you have multiple sites that prevent you from summary routing - and zero IP address control.. So these other sites just bring up any old network that you need routing protocol running to find out about them?
Do you have multiple paths and you make your path choice based up the routing info you get - so if one route path goes away you take a different route..
If you are wondering if you should run a routing protocol or static I really suggest you learn more about routing protocol in general. Unless you have multiple sites and zero control over what address space is used, or your using it for path failover/selection there is like zero reason to run routing protocols. Gets you nothing more than extra complexity and extra packets on the wire doing nothing!
More likely then not you could just route 192.168/16 or 172.16/12 or 10/8 to your downstream L3 and be done with it.
Yes there are extra packets sent advertising the routes but it is a point to point connection and I am not pushing a full GIG across it. If I build it, I can expand on it. I really like EIGRP but that is Cisco only. I also understand OSPF has problems. So how well does RIP work on pfsense?
Sounds like using summy routes on pfsense should make changing networks easy.
who said anything about eigrp.. Why would you not just run ospf or bgp? Where did you hear ospf has problems?
I really suggest you evaluate why you think you need to run any sort of routing protocol. So you have a point to point connection. Does the network on the other end of your point to point change? Do they add connections on the other end? That they need to then advertise to use - and you don't have a clue to what they other networks are??
Running routing protocol when you control the address space is pointless - unless your going to use it for some sort of failover method when you have multiple paths, etc..
I think I can setup multiple routers and have them online all at the same time. I will be able to swap real easy and add devices easy. I worked with EIGRP for 15 years so I have an idea of what a basic routing protocol can do. BGP is not what I need.
So the big question is how stable is RIPv2? I know RIP will not work in a large network but at my house it should do what I need.
If I go down this road and spend the money. I don't want to find out pfsense does not work otherwise I will have to dump pfsense for something else that does work. I feel like once I spend the money I am committed.