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: 2019-Feb-11
Document File: 7 page(s) / 10K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

G. Malkin: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1388: DOI

Abstract

This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information Protocol (RIP), as defined in [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 21% 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

Malkin [Page 1]

RFC 1388 RIP Version 2 January 1993

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 than OSPF and IS-IS combined. It is likely to remain that way for some years yet.

Given that RIP will be useful in many environments for some period of time, it is reasonable to increase RIP’s usefulness. This is e...

Processing...
Loading...