Browse Prior Art Database

RIP Version 2 Carrying Additional Information (RFC1388)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002212D
Original Publication Date: 1993-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 6 page(s) / 15K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

G. Malkin: AUTHOR

Abstract

This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information Protocol (RIP), as defined in [1], to expand the amount of useful information carried in RIP packets and to add a measure of security. A companion document will define the SNMP MIB objects for RIP-2 [2].

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 19% of the total text.

Network Working Group G. Malkin

Request for Comments: 1388 Xylogics, Inc.

Updates: RFC 1058 January 1993

RIP Version 2

Carrying Additional Information

Status of this Memo

This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet

community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol

Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information

Protocol (RIP), as defined in [1], to expand the amount of useful

information carried in RIP packets and to add a measure of security.

A companion document will define the SNMP MIB objects for RIP-2 [2].

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following for their contributions to this

document: Fred Baker, Noel Chiappa and Vince Fuller. This memo is a

product of the RIP-2 Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task

Force (IETF).

Table of Contents

1. Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Current RIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.1 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.2 Routing Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.3 Route Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.4 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.5 Next Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.6 Multicasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.1 Compatibility Switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.2 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.3 Larger Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.4 Addressless Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Justification

With the advent of OSPF and IS-IS, there are those who believe that

RIP is obsolete. While it is true that the newer IGP routing

protocols are far superior to RIP, RIP does have some advantages.

Primarily, in a small network, RIP has very little overhead in terms

of bandwidth used and configuration and management time. RIP is also

very easy to implement, especially in relation to the newer IGPs.

Additionally, there are many, many more RIP implementations in the

field th...