RIP Version 2 Carrying Additional Information
RFC 1388

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (January 1993; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 1723
Updates RFC 1058
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 1388 (Proposed Standard)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          G. Malkin
Request for Comments: 1388                                Xylogics, Inc.
Updates: RFC 1058                                           January 1993

                             RIP Version 2
                    Carrying Additional Information

Status of this Memo

   This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
   community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
   Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
   Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information
   Protocol (RIP), as defined in [1], to expand the amount of useful
   information carried in RIP packets and to add a measure of security.
   A companion document will define the SNMP MIB objects for RIP-2 [2].

Acknowledgements

   I would like to thank the following for their contributions to this
   document: Fred Baker, Noel Chiappa and Vince Fuller.  This memo is a
   product of the RIP-2 Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task
   Force (IETF).

Table of Contents

   1.  Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Current RIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.1   Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.2   Routing Domain  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.3   Route Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.4   Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.5   Next Hop  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.6   Multicasting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.1   Compatibility Switch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.2   Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.3   Larger Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.4   Addressless Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Appendix A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Malkin                                                          [Page 1]
RFC 1388                     RIP Version 2                  January 1993

   Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Justification

   With the advent of OSPF and IS-IS, there are those who believe that
   RIP is obsolete.  While it is true that the newer IGP routing
   protocols are far superior to RIP, RIP does have some advantages.
   Primarily, in a small network, RIP has very little overhead in terms
   of bandwidth used and configuration and management time.  RIP is also
   very easy to implement, especially in relation to the newer IGPs.

   Additionally, there are many, many more RIP implementations in the
   field than OSPF and IS-IS combined.  It is likely to remain that way
   for some years yet.

   Given that RIP will be useful in many environments for some period of
   time, it is reasonable to increase RIP's usefulness.  This is
   especially true since the gain is far greater than the expense of the
   change.

2. Current RIP

   The current RIP packet contains the minimal amount of information
   necessary for routers to route packets through a network.  It also
   contains a large amount of unused space, owing to its origins.

   The current RIP protocol does not consider autonomous systems and
   IGP/EGP interactions, subnetting, and authentication since
   implementations of these postdate RIP.  The lack of subnet masks is a
   particularly serious problem for routers since they need a subnet
   mask to know how to determine a route.  If a RIP route is a network
   route (all non-network bits 0), the subnet mask equals the network
   mask.  However, if some of the non-network bits are set, the router
   cannot determine the subnet mask.  Worse still, the router cannot
   determine if the RIP route is a subnet route or a host route.
   Currently, some routers simply choose the subnet mask of the
   interface over which the route was learned and determine the route
   type from that.

3. Protocol Extensions

   This document does not change the RIP protocol per se.  Rather, it
   provides extensions to the datagram format which allows routers to
   share important additional information.

Malkin                                                          [Page 2]
Show full document text