As per Relevance of the word internet, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group G.
Request for Comments: 1387 Xylogics, Inc
January 1993
RIP Version 2 Protocol
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo
unlimited
As required by Routing Protocol Criteria (RFC 1264), this
documents the key features of the RIP-2 protocol and the
implementation experience
The RIP-2 protocol owes much to those who participated in the RIP-2
Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
special thanks goes to Fred Baker for his help on the MIB, and
Jeffrey Honig for the implementation experience
1. Protocol
The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in RFC 1388 [1]. This
suggests an update to the "Routing Information Protocol" (RFC 1058)
[3]. The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1389 [2].
2. Key
While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorithms as RIP-1, it
several new features. They are: routing domains, external
tags, subnet masks, next hop addresses, and authentication
2.1 Routing
Routing domains allow multiple RIP "clouds" to exist over the
physical network. This is a feature requested by several members
the working group. It allows simple policies to be constructed
grouping routers into domains which share routing information
Malkin [Page 1]
RFC 1387 RIP-2 Analysis January 1993
2.2 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
2.3 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
2.4 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
2.5
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
2.6
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 is are per-peer counters which
the status of RIP-2 "neighbors".
Malkin [Page 2]
RFC 1387 RIP-2 Analysis January 1993
4.
Currently, there is one nearly complete implementation of RIP-2.
"gated" implementation is now available with RIP-2, written
Jeffrey Honig at Cornell University. It may be acquired by
FTP from gated.cornell.edu as pub/gated/gated-alpha.tar.Z.
implements multicasting, subnet masks, limited authentication, next
hop, and limited routing domain support. A RIP-2 version of
is also available. The "gated" implementation does not yet
full subsumption rules, full authentication, full routing domains
and the MIB. It has been tested against itself and various RIP-1
implementations
A second, complete implementation is under development by a
who's identity cannot be disclosed at this time
5.
[1] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information",
RFC 1388, Xylogics, Inc., January 1993.
[2] Malkin, G., and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension",
1389, Xylogics, Inc., Advanced Computer Communications,
1993.
[3] Hedrick, C., "Routing Information Protocol", RFC 1058,
University, June 1988.
6. Security
Security issues are discussed in section 2.5.
7. Author's
Gary Scott
Xylogics, Inc
53 Third
Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: (617) 272-8140
EMail: gmalkin@Xylogics.
Malkin [Page 3]
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
