Comments on RFC 2453
draft-massimo-rip-cor-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Massimo Torre | ||
| Last updated | 2001-08-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This draft is intended to point out a difference of behaviour between the RIP protocol as described in the RFC 2453 (also STD 56) and the RIP protocol as implemented by many vendors. If all the vendors apply the same rule, no problem arises. But, on the contrary, serious problems of interoperability can occur.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)