RFC 1721 INFORMATIONAL ROUTING · RIP

RIPv2 analysis: RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis

A report on RIP-2 features, implementations and operational experience.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
November 1994
AUTHORS
G. Malkin
STREAM
IETF
BUILDS ON
RFC 1387 — RIPv2
COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATIONS REPORTED
Three
PRODUCTION USE REPORTED
Five months
AUTHENTICATION DEFINED
Plain-text password
DOI
10.17487/RFC1721

RFC text

Contents
Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                          G. Malkin
Request for Comments: 1721                                Xylogics, Inc.
Obsoletes: 1387                                            November 1994
Category: Informational


                    RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

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
   advancing RIP-2 on the standards track.

Acknowledgements

   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
   the MIB, and to Jeffrey Honig, for all his comments.

1.  Protocol Documents

   The RIP-2 applicability statement is defined in RFC 1722 [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
   obsoletes RFC 1389.

2.  Key Features

   While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorithms as RIP-1, it supports
   several new features.  They are: external route tags, subnet masks,
   next hop addresses, and authentication.

   The significant change from RFC 1388 is the removal of the domain
   field.  There was no clear agreement as to how the field would be
   used, so it was determined to leave the field reserved for future
   expansion.

2.1  External Route Tags

   The route tag field may be used to propagate information acquired
   from an EGP.  The definition of the contents of this field are beyond
   the scope of this protocol.  However, it may be used, for example, to
   propagate an EGP AS number.

2.2  Subnet Masks

   Inclusion of subnet masks was the original intent of opening the RIP
   protocol for improvement.  Subnet mask information makes RIP more
   useful in a variety of environments and allows the use of variable
   subnet masks on the network.  Subnet masks are also necessary for
   implementation of "classless" addressing, as the CIDR work proposes.

2.3  Next Hop Addresses

   Support for next hop addresses allows for optimization of routes in
   an environment which uses multiple routing protocols.  For example,
   if RIP-2 were being run on a network along with another IGP, and one
   router ran both protocols, then that router could indicate to the
   other RIP-2 routers that a better next hop than itself exists for a
   given destination.

2.4  Authentication

   One significant improvement RIP-2 offers over RIP-1, is the addition
   of an authentication mechanism.  Essentially, it is the same
   extensible mechanism provided by OSPF.  Currently, only a plain-text
   password is defined for authentication.  However, more sophisticated
   authentication schemes can easily be incorporated as they are
   defined.

2.5  Multicasting

   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
   support routing protocols.  It also allows RIP-2 routers to share
   information which RIP-1 routers cannot hear.  This is useful since a
   RIP-1 router may misinterpret route information because it cannot
   apply the supplied subnet mask.

3.  RIP-2 MIB

   The MIB for RIP-2 allows for monitoring and control of RIP's
   operation within the router.  In addition to global and per-interface
   counters and controls, there are per-peer counters which provide the
   status of RIP-2 "neighbors".

   The MIB was modified to deprecate the domain, which was removed from
   the protocol.  It has also been converted into version 2 format.

4.  Implementations

   Currently, there are three complete implementations of RIP-2: GATED,
   written by Jeffrey Honig at Cornell University; Xylogics's Annex
   Communication server; and an implementation for NOS, written by Jeff
   White.  The GATED implementation is available by anonymous FTP from
   gated.cornell.edu as pub/gated/gated-alpha.tar.Z.  The implementation
   for NOS is available by anonymous FTP from ucsd.edu as
   /hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming/rip2.zip.

   Additionally, Midnight Networks has produced a test suite which
   verifies an implementation's conformance to RFC 1388 implemented over
   RFC 1058.

   The author has conducted interoperability testing between the GATED
   and Xylogics implementations and found no incompatibilities.  This
   testing includes verification of protection provided by the
   authentication mechanism described in section 2.4.

5.  Operational experience

   Xylogics has been running RIP-2 on its production systems for five
   months.  The topology includes seven subnets in a class B address and
   various, unregistered class C addresses used for dial-up access.  Six
   systems, in conjunction with three routers from other vendors and
   dozens of host systems, operate on those subnets.

   The only problem which has appeared is the reaction of some routers
   to Version 2 RIP packets.  Contrary to RFC 1058, these routers
   discard Version 2 packets rather than ignoring the fields not defined
   for Version 1.

6.  References

   [1] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement", RFC
       1722, Xylogics, Inc., November 1994.

   [2] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information",
       RFC 1723, Xylogics, Inc., November 1994.

   [3] Malkin, G., and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension", RFC
       1724, Xylogics, Inc., Cisco Systems, November 1994.

7.  Security Considerations

   Security issues are discussed in sections 2.4 and 4.

8.  Author's Address

   Gary Scott Malkin
   Xylogics, Inc.
   53 Third Avenue
   Burlington, MA 01803

   Phone:  (617) 272-8140
   EMail:  gmalkin@Xylogics.COM

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMThe routing protocol criteria called for a report on RIP-2 features and implementation experience before it advanced on the standards track.
MECHANISMThe memo describes features, the management information base, three complete implementations, interoperability testing and operational experience.
WHY IT MATTERSIt is an Informational report and obsoletes RFC 1387. It says that some routers discarded version 2 packets rather than ignoring fields unknown to version 1.

§1The RIP-2 Documents

As required by RFC 1264, this report documents RIP-2's main features and implementation experience. It is informational and does not itself specify an Internet standard.

The applicability statement is in RFC 1722, the protocol description in RFC 1723, and the MIB description in RFC 1724. This memo obsoletes RFC 1387.

This is a report about RIP-2, not the protocol specification itself. It points readers to separate documents for the rules and management information.

§2Features Added to RIP-1

RIP-2 shares the basic algorithms of RIP-1 and adds external route tags, subnet masks, next hop addresses and authentication. It also allows packets to be multicast instead of broadcast. The domain field from the earlier version was removed and left reserved because there was no clear agreement on its use.

Route tags can carry information obtained from an exterior gateway protocol, such as an autonomous system number. Subnet masks support variable subnet masks and classless addressing. A next hop address can identify a better next router. The authentication mechanism is extensible, but the memo defines only a plain-text password.

RIP-2 adds fields for route information, subnet sizes and a better next router. It also adds authentication and can send updates to a multicast address.

§3The RIP-2 Management Information Base

The RIP-2 MIB lets operators monitor and control RIP inside a router. It includes global and per-interface counters and controls, as well as per-peer counters that show the status of RIP-2 neighbors.

The MIB was changed to remove the domain field and converted to version 2 format.

The MIB contains counters and controls for RIP, its interfaces and its neighbors. It gives an operator information about the protocol inside a router.

§4Implementations and Experience

The memo names three complete implementations: GATED, Xylogics's Annex Communication server and an implementation for NOS. The author tested GATED with the Xylogics implementation and found no incompatibilities, including in the authentication mechanism.

Xylogics had run RIP-2 on production systems for five months. The only reported problem was that some routers discarded version 2 packets instead of ignoring fields not defined for version 1, contrary to RFC 1058.

The author reports three complete implementations and a successful interoperability test between two of them. Some routers did not handle new-version packets as expected.

§5References