Browse Prior Art Database

RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis (RFC1387) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002211D
Original Publication Date: 1993-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 3 page(s) / 5K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

G. Malkin: AUTHOR


As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this report documents the key features of the RIP-2 protocol and the current implementation experience.

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 57% of the total text.

Network Working Group G. Malkin

Request for Comments: 1387 Xylogics, Inc.

January 1993

RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is



As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this report

documents the key features of the RIP-2 protocol and the current

implementation experience.


The RIP-2 protocol owes much to those who participated in the RIP-2

Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). A

special thanks goes to Fred Baker for his help on the MIB, and to

Jeffrey Honig for the implementation experience.

1. Protocol Documents

The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in RFC 1388 [1]. This memo

suggests an update to the "Routing Information Protocol" (RFC 1058)

[3]. The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1389 [2].

2. Key Features

While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorithms as RIP-1, it supports

several new features. They are: routing domains, external route

tags, subnet masks, next hop addresses, and authentication.

2.1 Routing Domains

Routing domains allow multiple RIP "clouds" to exist over the same

physical network. This is a feature requested by several members of

the working group. It allows simple policies to be constructed by

grouping routers into domains which share routing information.

2.2 External Route Tags

The route tag field may be used to propagate information acquired

from an EGP. The definition of the contents of this field are beyond

the scope of this protocol. However, it may be used, for example, to

propagate an EGP AS number.

2.3 Subnet Masks

Inclusion of subnet masks was the original intent of opening the RIP

protocol for improvement. Subnet mask information makes RIP more

useful in a variety of environments and allows the use of variable

subnet masks on the network. Subnet masks are also necessary for

implementation of "classless" addressing, as the CIDR work proposes.

2.4 Next Hop Addresses

Support for next hop addresses allows for optimization of routes in

an environment which uses multiple routing protocols. For example,

if RIP-2 were being run on a network along with another IGP, and one

router ran both protocols, then that router could indicate to the

other RIP-2 routers that a better next hop than itself exists for a

given destination.

2.5 Authentication

One significant improvement RIP-2 offers over RIP-1, is the addition

of an authentication mechanism. Essentially, it is the same

extensible mechanism provided by OSPF. Currently, only a plain-text

password is defined for authentication. However, more sophisticated

authentication schemes can easily be incorporated as they are