Your explanation of static and dynamic routing captures the essential differences between the two approaches effectively. I appreciate how you highlighted the manual configuration required for static routing, which indeed provides greater control and reliability in smaller networks. However, as you pointed out, the maintenance can become quite burdensome as the network scales or changes frequently, making it less ideal for larger environments.
In contrast, dynamic routing truly excels in larger or more complex networks, as it allows for automatic adjustment to changing conditions and can quickly compute the most efficient paths. While dynamic routing protocols can introduce risks due to complexity and potential misconfigurations, they also offer significant advantages in scalability and adaptability.
It makes sense that both static and dynamic routing coexist in networks today. Many organizations utilize static routes for critical paths or connections that seldom change, providing stability where it is needed, while dynamic routing is employed for the rest of the network, allowing it to flexibly handle fluctuations in traffic and topology. This hybrid approach optimizes performance while balancing control and automation, tailored to specific network needs. Great insights!