Browse Prior Art Database

RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis (RFC1721)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003969D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 3 page(s) / 6K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

G. Malkin: AUTHOR

Abstract

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 report is a prerequisite to advancing RIP-2 on the standards track.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 44% of the total text.

Network Working Group G. Malkin

Request for Comments: 1721 Xylogics, Inc.

Obsoletes: 1387 November 1994

Category: Informational

RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo

does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of

this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

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 report is a prerequisite to

advancing RIP-2 on the standards track.

Acknowledgements

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

working group. A special thanks goes to Fred Baker, for his help on

the MIB, and to Jeffrey Honig, for all his comments.

1. Protocol Documents

The RIP-2 applicability statement is defined in RFC 1722 [1].

The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in RFC 1723 [2]. This memo

obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the "Routing

Information Protocol" RFC 1058 (STD 34).

The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1724 [3]. This memo

obsoletes RFC 1389.

2. Key Features

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

several new features. They are: external route tags, subnet masks,

next hop addresses, and authentication.

The significant change from RFC 1388 is the removal of the domain

field. There was no clear agreement as to how the field would be

used, so it was determined to leave the field reserved for future

expansion.

2.1 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.

2.2 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.

2.3 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 ind...