As per Relevance of the word implementation, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group G.
Request for Comments: 1721 Xylogics, Inc
Obsoletes: 1387 November 1994
Category:
RIP Version 2 Protocol
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution
this memo is unlimited
As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this
documents the key features of the RIP-2 protocol and the
implementation experience. This report is a prerequisite
advancing RIP-2 on the standards track
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
the MIB, and to Jeffrey Honig, for all his comments
1. Protocol
The RIP-2 applicability statement is defined in RFC 1722 [1].
The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in RFC 1723 [2]. This
obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the "
Information Protocol" RFC 1058 (STD 34).
The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1724 [3]. This
obsoletes RFC 1389.
2. Key
While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorithms as RIP-1, it
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
field. There was no clear agreement as to how the field would
used, so it was determined to leave the field reserved for
expansion
Malkin [Page 1]
RFC 1721 RIP-2 Analysis November 1994
2.1 External Route
The route tag field may be used to propagate information
from an EGP. The definition of the contents of this field are
the scope of this protocol. However, it may be used, for example,
propagate an EGP AS number
2.2 Subnet
Inclusion of subnet masks was the original intent of opening the
protocol for improvement. Subnet mask information makes RIP
useful in a variety of environments and allows the use of
subnet masks on the network. Subnet masks are also necessary
implementation of "classless" addressing, as the CIDR work proposes
2.3 Next Hop
Support for next hop addresses allows for optimization of routes
an environment which uses multiple routing protocols. For example
if RIP-2 were being run on a network along with another IGP, and
router ran both protocols, then that router could indicate to
other RIP-2 routers that a better next hop than itself exists for
given destination
2.4
One significant improvement RIP-2 offers over RIP-1, is the
of an authentication mechanism. Essentially, it is the
extensible mechanism provided by OSPF. Currently, only a plain-
password is defined for authentication. However, more
authentication schemes can easily be incorporated as they
defined
2.5
RIP-2 packets may be multicast instead of being broadcast. The
of an IP multicast address reduces the load on hosts which do
support routing protocols. It also allows RIP-2 routers to
information which RIP-1 routers cannot hear. This is useful since
RIP-1 router may misinterpret route information because it
apply the supplied subnet mask
3. RIP-2
The MIB for RIP-2 allows for monitoring and control of RIP'
operation within the router. In addition to global and per-
counters and controls, there are per-peer counters which provide
status of RIP-2 "neighbors".
Malkin [Page 2]
RFC 1721 RIP-2 Analysis November 1994
The MIB was modified to deprecate the domain, which was removed
the protocol. It has also been converted into version 2 format
4.
Currently, there are three complete implementations of RIP-2: GATED
written by Jeffrey Honig at Cornell University; Xylogics's
Communication server; and an implementation for NOS, written by
White. The GATED implementation is available by anonymous FTP
gated.cornell.edu as pub/gated/gated-alpha.tar.Z. The
for NOS is available by anonymous FTP from ucsd.edu
/hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming/rip2.zip
Additionally, Midnight Networks has produced a test suite
verifies an implementation's conformance to RFC 1388 implemented
RFC 1058.
The author has conducted interoperability testing between the
and Xylogics implementations and found no incompatibilities.
testing includes verification of protection provided by
authentication mechanism described in section 2.4.
5. Operational
Xylogics has been running RIP-2 on its production systems for
months. The topology includes seven subnets in a class B address
various, unregistered class C addresses used for dial-up access.
systems, in conjunction with three routers from other vendors
dozens of host systems, operate on those subnets
The only problem which has appeared is the reaction of some
to Version 2 RIP packets. Contrary to RFC 1058, these
discard Version 2 packets rather than ignoring the fields not
for Version 1.
6.
[1] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement",
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",
1724, Xylogics, Inc., Cisco Systems, November 1994.
Malkin [Page 3]
RFC 1721 RIP-2 Analysis November 1994
7. Security
Security issues are discussed in sections 2.4 and 4.
8. Author's
Gary Scott
Xylogics, Inc
53 Third
Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: (617) 272-8140
EMail: gmalkin@Xylogics.
Malkin [Page 4]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
