Dismiss
InnovationQ/InnovationQ Plus content will be updated on Sunday, June 25, 10am ET, with new patent and non-patent literature collections. Click here to learn more.
Browse Prior Art Database

RIP-2 MD5 Authentication (RFC2082)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002634D
Original Publication Date: 1997-Jan-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 9 page(s) / 24K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

F. Baker: AUTHOR [+2]

Abstract

Growth in the Internet has made us aware of the need for improved authentication of routing information. RIP-2 provides for unauthenticated service (as in classical RIP), or password authentication. Both are vulnerable to passive attacks currently widespread in the Internet. Well-understood security issues exist in routing protocols [4]. Clear text passwords, currently specified for use with RIP-2, are no longer considered sufficient [5].

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 13% of the total text.

Network Working Group F. Baker

Request for Comments: 2082 R. Atkinson

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems

January 1997

RIP-2 MD5 Authentication

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

1 Use of Imperatives ........................................... 1

2 Introduction ................................................. 2

3 Implementation Approach ...................................... 3

3.1 RIP-2 PDU Format ........................................... 3

3.2 Processing Algorithm ....................................... 5

3.2.1 Message Generation ....................................... 6

3.2.2 Message Reception ........................................ 7

4 Management Procedures ........................................ 7

4.1 Key Management Requirements ................................ 7

4.2 Key Management Procedures .................................. 8

4.3 Pathological Cases ......................................... 9

5 Conformance Requirements ..................................... 9

6 Acknowledgments .............................................. 10

7 References ................................................... 10

8 Security Considerations ...................................... 11

9 Chairman's Address ........................................... 11

10 Authors' Addresses .......................................... 12

1. Use of Imperatives

Throughout this document, the words that are used to define the

significance of particular requirements are capitalized. These words

are:

MUST

This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the item is an

absolute requirement of this specification.

MUST NOT

This phrase means that the item is an absolute prohibition of this

specification.

SHOULD

This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there may

exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this

item, but the full implications should be understood and the case

carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

SHOULD NOT

This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular

circumstances when the listed behavior is acceptable or even

useful, but the full implications should be understood and the

case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described

with this label.

MAY

This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item is

...