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 Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information (RFC1723)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003971D
Original Publication Date: 1994-Nov-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 7 page(s) / 17K

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 [1,2], to expand the amount of useful information carried in RIP messages and to add a measure of security. This memo obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the "Routing Information Protocol" STD 34, RFC 1058.

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 17% of the total text.

Network Working Group G. Malkin

Request for Comments: 1723 Xylogics, Inc.

Obsoletes: 1388 November 1994

Updates: 1058

Category: Standards Track

RIP Version 2

Carrying Additional Information

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

This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information

Protocol (RIP), as defined in [1,2], to expand the amount of useful

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

This memo obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the

"Routing Information Protocol" STD 34, RFC 1058.

The RIP-2 protocol analysis is documented in RFC 1721 [4].

The RIP-2 applicability statement is document in RFC 1722 [5].

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

obsoletes RFC 1389.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the IETF ripv2 Working Group for their help in

improving the RIP-2 protocol.

Table of Contents

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

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

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

3.1 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.2 Route Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.3 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.4 Next Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.5 Multicasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.6 Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.1 Compatibility Switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

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

4.3 Larger Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.4 Addressless Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

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

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

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 us...