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: 2019-Feb-16
Document File: 12 page(s) / 16K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

F. Baker: AUTHOR [+1]

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC2082: DOI

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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 14% 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.

Baker & Atkinson Standards Track [Page 1]

RFC 2082 RIP-2 MD5 Authentication January 1997

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 truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because it enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the same item.

2. Introduction

Growth in the Internet has made us aware of the need for improved a...

Processing...
Loading...