Browse Prior Art Database

RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement (RFC1722)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003970D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 4 page(s) / 10K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

G. Malkin: AUTHOR

Abstract

As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this report defines the applicability of the RIP-2 protocol within the Internet. This report is a prerequisite to advancing RIP-2 on the standards track.

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 31% of the total text.

Network Working Group G. Malkin

Request for Comments: 1722 Xylogics, Inc.

Category: Standards Track November 1994

RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement

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.

Abstract

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

defines the applicability of the RIP-2 protocol within the Internet.

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

track.

1. Protocol Documents

The RIP-2 protocol analysis is documented in RFC 1721 [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 will

obsolete RFC 1389.

2. Introduction

This report describes how RIP-2 may be useful within the Internet.

In essence, the environments in which RIP-2 is the IGP of choice is a

superset of the environments in which RIP-1, as defined in RFC 1058

[1], has traditionally been used. It is important to remember that

RIP-2 is an extension to RIP-1; RIP-2 is not a new protocol. Thus,

the operational aspects of distance-vector routing protocols, and

RIP-1 in particular, within an autonomous system are well understood.

It should be noted that RIP-2 is not intended to be a substitute for

OSPF in large autonomous systems; the restrictions on AS diameter and

complexity which applied to RIP-1 also apply to RIP-2. Rather, RIP-2

allows the smaller, simpler, distance-vector protocol to be used in

environments which require authentication or the use of variable

length subnet masks, but are not of a size or complexity which

require the use of the larger, more complex, link-state protocol.

The remainder of this report describes how each of the extensions to

RIP-1 may be used to increase the overall usefullness of RIP-2.

3. Extension Applicability

3.1 Subnet Masks

The original impetus behind the creation of RIP-2 was the desire to

include subnet masks in the routing information exchanged by RIP.

This was needed because subnetting was not defined when RIP was first

created. As long as the subnet mask was fixed for a network, and

well known by all the nodes on that network, a heuristic could be

used to determine if a route was a subnet route or a host route.

With the advent of variable length subnetting, CIDR, and

supernetting, it was no longer possible for a heuristic to reasonably

distinguish between network, subnet, and host routes.

By us...