draft-ietf-ripv2-analysis-00.txt   rfc1387.txt 
Network Working Group G. Malkin Network Working Group G. Malkin
Request for Comments: 1387 Xylogics, Inc.
Internet Draft Xylogics January 1993
August 1992
RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis
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 entering
RIP-2 into the standards track.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is
and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute unlimited.
working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
draft" or "work in progress."
Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet Abstract
Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other
Internet Draft.
It is intended that this document will be submitted to the IESG for As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this report
consideration as a standards document. Distribution of this document documents the key features of the RIP-2 protocol and the current
is unlimited. implementation experience.
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
The RIP-2 protocol owes much to those who participated in the RIP-2 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 Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). A
the MIB, and to Jeffrey Honig for the implementation experience. special thanks goes to Fred Baker for his help on the MIB, and to
Jeffrey Honig for the implementation experience.
1. Protocol Documents 1. Protocol Documents
The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in Internet Draft "draft- The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in RFC 1388 [1]. This memo
ietf-malkin-rip-04.txt". This draft specifies an update to the suggests an update to the "Routing Information Protocol" (RFC 1058)
"Routing Information Protocol" RFC 1058. [3]. The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1389 [2].
The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in Internet Draft "draft-ietf-
ripv2-mibext-02.txt". This draft has been approved by the Network
Management Area Directorate, and has passed two independent MIB
compiler checks.
2. Key Features 2. Key Features
While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorythms as RIP-1, it supports While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorithms as RIP-1, it supports
several new features. They are: routing domains, external route several new features. They are: routing domains, external route
tags, subnet masks, next hop addresses, and authentication. tags, subnet masks, next hop addresses, and authentication.
2.1 Routing Domains 2.1 Routing Domains
Routing domains allow multiple RIP "clouds" to exist over the same Routing domains allow multiple RIP "clouds" to exist over the same
physical network. This is a feature requested by several members of physical network. This is a feature requested by several members of
the working group. It allows simple policies to be constructed by the working group. It allows simple policies to be constructed by
grouping routers into domains which share routing information. grouping routers into domains which share routing information.
skipping to change at page 3, line 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 44
password is defined for authentication. However, more sophisticated password is defined for authentication. However, more sophisticated
authentication schemes can easily be incorporated as they are authentication schemes can easily be incorporated as they are
defined. defined.
2.6 Multicasting 2.6 Multicasting
RIP-2 packets may be multicast instead of being broadcast. The use RIP-2 packets may be multicast instead of being broadcast. The use
of an IP multicast address reduces the load on hosts which do not of an IP multicast address reduces the load on hosts which do not
support routing protocols. It also allows RIP-2 routers to share support routing protocols. It also allows RIP-2 routers to share
information which RIP-1 routers cannot hear. This is useful since a information which RIP-1 routers cannot hear. This is useful since a
RIP-1 router may missinterpret route information because it cannot RIP-1 router may misinterpret route information because it cannot
apply the supplied subnet mask. apply the supplied subnet mask.
3. RIP-2 MIB 3. RIP-2 MIB
The MIB for RIP-2 allows for monitoring and control of RIP's The MIB for RIP-2 allows for monitoring and control of RIP's
operation within the router. In addition to global and per-interface operation within the router. In addition to global and per-interface
counters and controls, there is are per-peer counters which provide counters and controls, there is are per-peer counters which provide
the status of RIP-2 "neighbors". the status of RIP-2 "neighbors".
4. Implementations 4. Implementations
skipping to change at page 4, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 21
implements multicasting, subnet masks, limited authentication, next- implements multicasting, subnet masks, limited authentication, next-
hop, and limited routing domain support. A RIP-2 version of ripquery hop, and limited routing domain support. A RIP-2 version of ripquery
is also available. The "gated" implementation does not yet support is also available. The "gated" implementation does not yet support
full subsumption rules, full authentication, full routing domains, full subsumption rules, full authentication, full routing domains,
and the MIB. It has been tested against itself and various RIP-1 and the MIB. It has been tested against itself and various RIP-1
implementations. implementations.
A second, complete implementation is under development by a vendor A second, complete implementation is under development by a vendor
who's identity cannot be disclosed at this time. who's identity cannot be disclosed at this time.
5. Security 5. References
Security issues are discussed in section 2.5. [1] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information",
RFC 1388, Xylogics, Inc., January 1993.
6. Author's Address [2] Malkin, G., and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension", RFC
1389, Xylogics, Inc., Advanced Computer Communications, January
1993.
Gary Scott Malkin [3] Hedrick, C., "Routing Information Protocol", RFC 1058, Rutgers
Xylogics, Inc. University, June 1988.
53 Third Avenue
Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: (617) 272-8140 6. Security Considerations
EMail: gmalkin@Xylogics.COM
Security issues are discussed in section 2.5.
7. Author's Address
Gary Scott Malkin
Xylogics, Inc.
53 Third Avenue
Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: (617) 272-8140
EMail: gmalkin@Xylogics.COM
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/