Skip to main content

RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 1387.
Author Gary S. Malkin
Last updated 2013-03-02 (Latest revision 1992-08-14)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 1387 (Informational)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          G. Malkin

Internet Draft                                                  Xylogics
                                                             August 1992

                    RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis


   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

   This document is an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
   and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
   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
   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
   consideration as a standards document.  Distribution of this document
   is unlimited.


   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 the implementation experience.

Expiration: February 13, 1992                                   [Page 1]
Internet Draft               RIP-2 Analysis                  August 1992

1.  Protocol Documents

   The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in Internet Draft "draft-
   ietf-malkin-rip-04.txt".  This draft specifies an update to the
   "Routing Information Protocol" RFC 1058.

   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

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

2.1  Routing Domains

   Routing domains allow multiple RIP "clouds" to exist over the same
   physical network.  This is a feature requested by several members of
   the working group.  It allows simple policies to be constructed by
   grouping routers into domains which share routing information.

2.2  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.

2.3  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.

2.4  Next Hop Addresses

   Support for next hop addresses allows for optimization of routes in
   an environment which uses multiple routing protocols.  For example,

Expiration: February 13, 1992                                   [Page 2]
Internet Draft               RIP-2 Analysis                  August 1992

   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.

2.5  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

2.6  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 missinterpret 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 is are per-peer counters which provide
   the status of RIP-2 "neighbors".

4.  Implementations

   Currently, there is one nearly complete implementation of RIP-2.  A
   "gated" implementation is now available with RIP-2, written by
   Jeffrey Honig at Cornell University.  It may be acquired by anonymous
   FTP from as pub/gated/gated-alpha.tar.Z.  It
   implements multicasting, subnet masks, limited authentication, next-
   hop, and limited routing domain support.  A RIP-2 version of ripquery
   is also available.  The "gated" implementation does not yet support
   full subsumption rules, full authentication, full routing domains,
   and the MIB.  It has been tested against itself and various RIP-1

   A second, complete implementation is under development by a vendor

Expiration: February 13, 1992                                   [Page 3]
Internet Draft               RIP-2 Analysis                  August 1992

   who's identity cannot be disclosed at this time.

5.  Security

   Security issues are discussed in section 2.5.

6.  Author's Address

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

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

Expiration: February 13, 1992                                   [Page 4]