diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc1058.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1058.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc1058.txt | 1851 |
1 files changed, 1851 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1058.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1058.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c42c05 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1058.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1851 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group C. Hedrick +Request for Comments: 1058 Rutgers University + June 1988 + + + Routing Information Protocol + + +Status of this Memo + + This RFC describes an existing protocol for exchanging routing + information among gateways and other hosts. It is intended to be + used as a basis for developing gateway software for use in the + Internet community. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + + Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction 2 + 1.1. Limitations of the protocol 4 + 1.2. Organization of this document 4 + 2. Distance Vector Algorithms 5 + 2.1. Dealing with changes in topology 11 + 2.2. Preventing instability 12 + 2.2.1. Split horizon 14 + 2.2.2. Triggered updates 15 + 3. Specifications for the protocol 16 + 3.1. Message formats 18 + 3.2. Addressing considerations 20 + 3.3. Timers 23 + 3.4. Input processing 24 + 3.4.1. Request 25 + 3.4.2. Response 26 + 3.5. Output Processing 28 + 3.6. Compatibility 31 + 4. Control functions 31 + +Overview + + This memo is intended to do the following things: + + - Document a protocol and algorithms that are currently in + wide use for routing, but which have never been formally + documented. + + - Specify some improvements in the algorithms which will + improve stability of the routes in large networks. These + improvements do not introduce any incompatibility with + existing implementations. They are to be incorporated into + + + +Hedrick [Page 1] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + all implementations of this protocol. + + - Suggest some optional features to allow greater + configurability and control. These features were developed + specifically to solve problems that have shown up in actual + use by the NSFnet community. However, they should have more + general utility. + + The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) described here is loosely + based on the program "routed", distributed with the 4.3 Berkeley + Software Distribution. However, there are several other + implementations of what is supposed to be the same protocol. + Unfortunately, these various implementations disagree in various + details. The specifications here represent a combination of features + taken from various implementations. We believe that a program + designed according to this document will interoperate with routed, + and with all other implementations of RIP of which we are aware. + + Note that this description adopts a different view than most existing + implementations about when metrics should be incremented. By making + a corresponding change in the metric used for a local network, we + have retained compatibility with other existing implementations. See + section 3.6 for details on this issue. + +1. Introduction + + This memo describes one protocol in a series of routing protocols + based on the Bellman-Ford (or distance vector) algorithm. This + algorithm has been used for routing computations in computer networks + since the early days of the ARPANET. The particular packet formats + and protocol described here are based on the program "routed", which + is included with the Berkeley distribution of Unix. It has become a + de facto standard for exchange of routing information among gateways + and hosts. It is implemented for this purpose by most commercial + vendors of IP gateways. Note, however, that many of these vendors + have their own protocols which are used among their own gateways. + + This protocol is most useful as an "interior gateway protocol". In a + nationwide network such as the current Internet, it is very unlikely + that a single routing protocol will used for the whole network. + Rather, the network will be organized as a collection of "autonomous + systems". An autonomous system will in general be administered by a + single entity, or at least will have some reasonable degree of + technical and administrative control. Each autonomous system will + have its own routing technology. This may well be different for + different autonomous systems. The routing protocol used within an + autonomous system is referred to as an interior gateway protocol, or + "IGP". A separate protocol is used to interface among the autonomous + + + +Hedrick [Page 2] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + systems. The earliest such protocol, still used in the Internet, is + "EGP" (exterior gateway protocol). Such protocols are now usually + referred to as inter-AS routing protocols. RIP was designed to work + with moderate-size networks using reasonably homogeneous technology. + Thus it is suitable as an IGP for many campuses and for regional + networks using serial lines whose speeds do not vary widely. It is + not intended for use in more complex environments. For more + information on the context into which RIP is expected to fit, see + Braden and Postel [3]. + + RIP is one of a class of algorithms known as "distance vector + algorithms". The earliest description of this class of algorithms + known to the author is in Ford and Fulkerson [6]. Because of this, + they are sometimes known as Ford-Fulkerson algorithms. The term + Bellman-Ford is also used. It comes from the fact that the + formulation is based on Bellman's equation, the basis of "dynamic + programming". (For a standard introduction to this area, see [1].) + The presentation in this document is closely based on [2]. This text + contains an introduction to the mathematics of routing algorithms. + It describes and justifies several variants of the algorithm + presented here, as well as a number of other related algorithms. The + basic algorithms described in this protocol were used in computer + routing as early as 1969 in the ARPANET. However, the specific + ancestry of this protocol is within the Xerox network protocols. The + PUP protocols (see [4]) used the Gateway Information Protocol to + exchange routing information. A somewhat updated version of this + protocol was adopted for the Xerox Network Systems (XNS) + architecture, with the name Routing Information Protocol. (See [7].) + Berkeley's routed is largely the same as the Routing Information + Protocol, with XNS addresses replaced by a more general address + format capable of handling IP and other types of address, and with + routing updates limited to one every 30 seconds. Because of this + similarity, the term Routing Information Protocol (or just RIP) is + used to refer to both the XNS protocol and the protocol used by + routed. + + RIP is intended for use within the IP-based Internet. The Internet + is organized into a number of networks connected by gateways. The + networks may be either point-to-point links or more complex networks + such as Ethernet or the ARPANET. Hosts and gateways are presented + with IP datagrams addressed to some host. Routing is the method by + which the host or gateway decides where to send the datagram. It may + be able to send the datagram directly to the destination, if that + destination is on one of the networks that are directly connected to + the host or gateway. However, the interesting case is when the + destination is not directly reachable. In this case, the host or + gateway attempts to send the datagram to a gateway that is nearer the + destination. The goal of a routing protocol is very simple: It is to + + + +Hedrick [Page 3] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + supply the information that is needed to do routing. + +1.1. Limitations of the protocol + + This protocol does not solve every possible routing problem. As + mentioned above, it is primary intended for use as an IGP, in + reasonably homogeneous networks of moderate size. In addition, the + following specific limitations should be mentioned: + + - The protocol is limited to networks whose longest path + involves 15 hops. The designers believe that the basic + protocol design is inappropriate for larger networks. Note + that this statement of the limit assumes that a cost of 1 + is used for each network. This is the way RIP is normally + configured. If the system administrator chooses to use + larger costs, the upper bound of 15 can easily become a + problem. + + - The protocol depends upon "counting to infinity" to resolve + certain unusual situations. (This will be explained in the + next section.) If the system of networks has several + hundred networks, and a routing loop was formed involving + all of them, the resolution of the loop would require + either much time (if the frequency of routing updates were + limited) or bandwidth (if updates were sent whenever + changes were detected). Such a loop would consume a large + amount of network bandwidth before the loop was corrected. + We believe that in realistic cases, this will not be a + problem except on slow lines. Even then, the problem will + be fairly unusual, since various precautions are taken that + should prevent these problems in most cases. + + - This protocol uses fixed "metrics" to compare alternative + routes. It is not appropriate for situations where routes + need to be chosen based on real-time parameters such a + measured delay, reliability, or load. The obvious + extensions to allow metrics of this type are likely to + introduce instabilities of a sort that the protocol is not + designed to handle. + +1.2. Organization of this document + + The main body of this document is organized into two parts, which + occupy the next two sections: + + 2 A conceptual development and justification of distance vector + algorithms in general. + + + + +Hedrick [Page 4] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + 3 The actual protocol description. + + Each of these two sections can largely stand on its own. Section 2 + attempts to give an informal presentation of the mathematical + underpinnings of the algorithm. Note that the presentation follows a + "spiral" method. An initial, fairly simple algorithm is described. + Then refinements are added to it in successive sections. Section 3 + is the actual protocol description. Except where specific references + are made to section 2, it should be possible to implement RIP + entirely from the specifications given in section 3. + +2. Distance Vector Algorithms + + Routing is the task of finding a path from a sender to a desired + destination. In the IP "Catenet model" this reduces primarily to a + matter of finding gateways between networks. As long as a message + remains on a single network or subnet, any routing problems are + solved by technology that is specific to the network. For example, + the Ethernet and the ARPANET each define a way in which any sender + can talk to any specified destination within that one network. IP + routing comes in primarily when messages must go from a sender on one + such network to a destination on a different one. In that case, the + message must pass through gateways connecting the networks. If the + networks are not adjacent, the message may pass through several + intervening networks, and the gateways connecting them. Once the + message gets to a gateway that is on the same network as the + destination, that network's own technology is used to get to the + destination. + + Throughout this section, the term "network" is used generically to + cover a single broadcast network (e.g., an Ethernet), a point to + point line, or the ARPANET. The critical point is that a network is + treated as a single entity by IP. Either no routing is necessary (as + with a point to point line), or that routing is done in a manner that + is transparent to IP, allowing IP to treat the entire network as a + single fully-connected system (as with an Ethernet or the ARPANET). + Note that the term "network" is used in a somewhat different way in + discussions of IP addressing. A single IP network number may be + assigned to a collection of networks, with "subnet" addressing being + used to describe the individual networks. In effect, we are using + the term "network" here to refer to subnets in cases where subnet + addressing is in use. + + A number of different approaches for finding routes between networks + are possible. One useful way of categorizing these approaches is on + the basis of the type of information the gateways need to exchange in + order to be able to find routes. Distance vector algorithms are + based on the exchange of only a small amount of information. Each + + + +Hedrick [Page 5] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + entity (gateway or host) that participates in the routing protocol is + assumed to keep information about all of the destinations within the + system. Generally, information about all entities connected to one + network is summarized by a single entry, which describes the route to + all destinations on that network. This summarization is possible + because as far as IP is concerned, routing within a network is + invisible. Each entry in this routing database includes the next + gateway to which datagrams destined for the entity should be sent. + In addition, it includes a "metric" measuring the total distance to + the entity. Distance is a somewhat generalized concept, which may + cover the time delay in getting messages to the entity, the dollar + cost of sending messages to it, etc. Distance vector algorithms get + their name from the fact that it is possible to compute optimal + routes when the only information exchanged is the list of these + distances. Furthermore, information is only exchanged among entities + that are adjacent, that is, entities that share a common network. + + Although routing is most commonly based on information about + networks, it is sometimes necessary to keep track of the routes to + individual hosts. The RIP protocol makes no formal distinction + between networks and hosts. It simply describes exchange of + information about destinations, which may be either networks or + hosts. (Note however, that it is possible for an implementor to + choose not to support host routes. See section 3.2.) In fact, the + mathematical developments are most conveniently thought of in terms + of routes from one host or gateway to another. When discussing the + algorithm in abstract terms, it is best to think of a routing entry + for a network as an abbreviation for routing entries for all of the + entities connected to that network. This sort of abbreviation makes + sense only because we think of networks as having no internal + structure that is visible at the IP level. Thus, we will generally + assign the same distance to every entity in a given network. + + We said above that each entity keeps a routing database with one + entry for every possible destination in the system. An actual + implementation is likely to need to keep the following information + about each destination: + + - address: in IP implementations of these algorithms, this + will be the IP address of the host or network. + + - gateway: the first gateway along the route to the + destination. + + - interface: the physical network which must be used to reach + the first gateway. + + - metric: a number, indicating the distance to the + + + +Hedrick [Page 6] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + destination. + + - timer: the amount of time since the entry was last updated. + + In addition, various flags and other internal information will + probably be included. This database is initialized with a + description of the entities that are directly connected to the + system. It is updated according to information received in messages + from neighboring gateways. + + The most important information exchanged by the hosts and gateways is + that carried in update messages. Each entity that participates in + the routing scheme sends update messages that describe the routing + database as it currently exists in that entity. It is possible to + maintain optimal routes for the entire system by using only + information obtained from neighboring entities. The algorithm used + for that will be described in the next section. + + As we mentioned above, the purpose of routing is to find a way to get + datagrams to their ultimate destinations. Distance vector algorithms + are based on a table giving the best route to every destination in + the system. Of course, in order to define which route is best, we + have to have some way of measuring goodness. This is referred to as + the "metric". + + In simple networks, it is common to use a metric that simply counts + how many gateways a message must go through. In more complex + networks, a metric is chosen to represent the total amount of delay + that the message suffers, the cost of sending it, or some other + quantity which may be minimized. The main requirement is that it + must be possible to represent the metric as a sum of "costs" for + individual hops. + + Formally, if it is possible to get from entity i to entity j directly + (i.e., without passing through another gateway between), then a cost, + d(i,j), is associated with the hop between i and j. In the normal + case where all entities on a given network are considered to be the + same, d(i,j) is the same for all destinations on a given network, and + represents the cost of using that network. To get the metric of a + complete route, one just adds up the costs of the individual hops + that make up the route. For the purposes of this memo, we assume + that the costs are positive integers. + + Let D(i,j) represent the metric of the best route from entity i to + entity j. It should be defined for every pair of entities. d(i,j) + represents the costs of the individual steps. Formally, let d(i,j) + represent the cost of going directly from entity i to entity j. It + is infinite if i and j are not immediate neighbors. (Note that d(i,i) + + + +Hedrick [Page 7] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + is infinite. That is, we don't consider there to be a direct + connection from a node to itself.) Since costs are additive, it is + easy to show that the best metric must be described by + + D(i,i) = 0, all i + D(i,j) = min [d(i,k) + D(k,j)], otherwise + k + + and that the best routes start by going from i to those neighbors k + for which d(i,k) + D(k,j) has the minimum value. (These things can + be shown by induction on the number of steps in the routes.) Note + that we can limit the second equation to k's that are immediate + neighbors of i. For the others, d(i,k) is infinite, so the term + involving them can never be the minimum. + + It turns out that one can compute the metric by a simple algorithm + based on this. Entity i gets its neighbors k to send it their + estimates of their distances to the destination j. When i gets the + estimates from k, it adds d(i,k) to each of the numbers. This is + simply the cost of traversing the network between i and k. Now and + then i compares the values from all of its neighbors and picks the + smallest. + + A proof is given in [2] that this algorithm will converge to the + correct estimates of D(i,j) in finite time in the absence of topology + changes. The authors make very few assumptions about the order in + which the entities send each other their information, or when the min + is recomputed. Basically, entities just can't stop sending updates + or recomputing metrics, and the networks can't delay messages + forever. (Crash of a routing entity is a topology change.) Also, + their proof does not make any assumptions about the initial estimates + of D(i,j), except that they must be non-negative. The fact that + these fairly weak assumptions are good enough is important. Because + we don't have to make assumptions about when updates are sent, it is + safe to run the algorithm asynchronously. That is, each entity can + send updates according to its own clock. Updates can be dropped by + the network, as long as they don't all get dropped. Because we don't + have to make assumptions about the starting condition, the algorithm + can handle changes. When the system changes, the routing algorithm + starts moving to a new equilibrium, using the old one as its starting + point. It is important that the algorithm will converge in finite + time no matter what the starting point. Otherwise certain kinds of + changes might lead to non-convergent behavior. + + The statement of the algorithm given above (and the proof) assumes + that each entity keeps copies of the estimates that come from each of + its neighbors, and now and then does a min over all of the neighbors. + In fact real implementations don't necessarily do that. They simply + + + +Hedrick [Page 8] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + remember the best metric seen so far, and the identity of the + neighbor that sent it. They replace this information whenever they + see a better (smaller) metric. This allows them to compute the + minimum incrementally, without having to store data from all of the + neighbors. + + There is one other difference between the algorithm as described in + texts and those used in real protocols such as RIP: the description + above would have each entity include an entry for itself, showing a + distance of zero. In fact this is not generally done. Recall that + all entities on a network are normally summarized by a single entry + for the network. Consider the situation of a host or gateway G that + is connected to network A. C represents the cost of using network A + (usually a metric of one). (Recall that we are assuming that the + internal structure of a network is not visible to IP, and thus the + cost of going between any two entities on it is the same.) In + principle, G should get a message from every other entity H on + network A, showing a cost of 0 to get from that entity to itself. G + would then compute C + 0 as the distance to H. Rather than having G + look at all of these identical messages, it simply starts out by + making an entry for network A in its table, and assigning it a metric + of C. This entry for network A should be thought of as summarizing + the entries for all other entities on network A. The only entity on + A that can't be summarized by that common entry is G itself, since + the cost of going from G to G is 0, not C. But since we never need + those 0 entries, we can safely get along with just the single entry + for network A. Note one other implication of this strategy: because + we don't need to use the 0 entries for anything, hosts that do not + function as gateways don't need to send any update messages. Clearly + hosts that don't function as gateways (i.e., hosts that are connected + to only one network) can have no useful information to contribute + other than their own entry D(i,i) = 0. As they have only the one + interface, it is easy to see that a route to any other network + through them will simply go in that interface and then come right + back out it. Thus the cost of such a route will be greater than the + best cost by at least C. Since we don't need the 0 entries, non- + gateways need not participate in the routing protocol at all. + + Let us summarize what a host or gateway G does. For each destination + in the system, G will keep a current estimate of the metric for that + destination (i.e., the total cost of getting to it) and the identity + of the neighboring gateway on whose data that metric is based. If + the destination is on a network that is directly connected to G, then + G simply uses an entry that shows the cost of using the network, and + the fact that no gateway is needed to get to the destination. It is + easy to show that once the computation has converged to the correct + metrics, the neighbor that is recorded by this technique is in fact + the first gateway on the path to the destination. (If there are + + + +Hedrick [Page 9] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + several equally good paths, it is the first gateway on one of them.) + This combination of destination, metric, and gateway is typically + referred to as a route to the destination with that metric, using + that gateway. + + The method so far only has a way to lower the metric, as the existing + metric is kept until a smaller one shows up. It is possible that the + initial estimate might be too low. Thus, there must be a way to + increase the metric. It turns out to be sufficient to use the + following rule: suppose the current route to a destination has metric + D and uses gateway G. If a new set of information arrived from some + source other than G, only update the route if the new metric is + better than D. But if a new set of information arrives from G + itself, always update D to the new value. It is easy to show that + with this rule, the incremental update process produces the same + routes as a calculation that remembers the latest information from + all the neighbors and does an explicit minimum. (Note that the + discussion so far assumes that the network configuration is static. + It does not allow for the possibility that a system might fail.) + + To summarize, here is the basic distance vector algorithm as it has + been developed so far. (Note that this is not a statement of the RIP + protocol. There are several refinements still to be added.) The + following procedure is carried out by every entity that participates + in the routing protocol. This must include all of the gateways in + the system. Hosts that are not gateways may participate as well. + + - Keep a table with an entry for every possible destination + in the system. The entry contains the distance D to the + destination, and the first gateway G on the route to that + network. Conceptually, there should be an entry for the + entity itself, with metric 0, but this is not actually + included. + + - Periodically, send a routing update to every neighbor. The + update is a set of messages that contain all of the + information from the routing table. It contains an entry + for each destination, with the distance shown to that + destination. + + - When a routing update arrives from a neighbor G', add the + cost associated with the network that is shared with G'. + (This should be the network over which the update arrived.) + Call the resulting distance D'. Compare the resulting + distances with the current routing table entries. If the + new distance D' for N is smaller than the existing value D, + adopt the new route. That is, change the table entry for N + to have metric D' and gateway G'. If G' is the gateway + + + +Hedrick [Page 10] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + from which the existing route came, i.e., G' = G, then use + the new metric even if it is larger than the old one. + +2.1. Dealing with changes in topology + + The discussion above assumes that the topology of the network is + fixed. In practice, gateways and lines often fail and come back up. + To handle this possibility, we need to modify the algorithm slightly. + The theoretical version of the algorithm involved a minimum over all + immediate neighbors. If the topology changes, the set of neighbors + changes. Therefore, the next time the calculation is done, the + change will be reflected. However, as mentioned above, actual + implementations use an incremental version of the minimization. Only + the best route to any given destination is remembered. If the + gateway involved in that route should crash, or the network + connection to it break, the calculation might never reflect the + change. The algorithm as shown so far depends upon a gateway + notifying its neighbors if its metrics change. If the gateway + crashes, then it has no way of notifying neighbors of a change. + + In order to handle problems of this kind, distance vector protocols + must make some provision for timing out routes. The details depend + upon the specific protocol. As an example, in RIP every gateway that + participates in routing sends an update message to all its neighbors + once every 30 seconds. Suppose the current route for network N uses + gateway G. If we don't hear from G for 180 seconds, we can assume + that either the gateway has crashed or the network connecting us to + it has become unusable. Thus, we mark the route as invalid. When we + hear from another neighbor that has a valid route to N, the valid + route will replace the invalid one. Note that we wait for 180 + seconds before timing out a route even though we expect to hear from + each neighbor every 30 seconds. Unfortunately, messages are + occasionally lost by networks. Thus, it is probably not a good idea + to invalidate a route based on a single missed message. + + As we will see below, it is useful to have a way to notify neighbors + that there currently isn't a valid route to some network. RIP, along + with several other protocols of this class, does this through a + normal update message, by marking that network as unreachable. A + specific metric value is chosen to indicate an unreachable + destination; that metric value is larger than the largest valid + metric that we expect to see. In the existing implementation of RIP, + 16 is used. This value is normally referred to as "infinity", since + it is larger than the largest valid metric. 16 may look like a + surprisingly small number. It is chosen to be this small for reasons + that we will see shortly. In most implementations, the same + convention is used internally to flag a route as invalid. + + + + +Hedrick [Page 11] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + +2.2. Preventing instability + + The algorithm as presented up to this point will always allow a host + or gateway to calculate a correct routing table. However, that is + still not quite enough to make it useful in practice. The proofs + referred to above only show that the routing tables will converge to + the correct values in finite time. They do not guarantee that this + time will be small enough to be useful, nor do they say what will + happen to the metrics for networks that become inaccessible. + + It is easy enough to extend the mathematics to handle routes becoming + inaccessible. The convention suggested above will do that. We + choose a large metric value to represent "infinity". This value must + be large enough that no real metric would ever get that large. For + the purposes of this example, we will use the value 16. Suppose a + network becomes inaccessible. All of the immediately neighboring + gateways time out and set the metric for that network to 16. For + purposes of analysis, we can assume that all the neighboring gateways + have gotten a new piece of hardware that connects them directly to + the vanished network, with a cost of 16. Since that is the only + connection to the vanished network, all the other gateways in the + system will converge to new routes that go through one of those + gateways. It is easy to see that once convergence has happened, all + the gateways will have metrics of at least 16 for the vanished + network. Gateways one hop away from the original neighbors would end + up with metrics of at least 17; gateways two hops away would end up + with at least 18, etc. As these metrics are larger than the maximum + metric value, they are all set to 16. It is obvious that the system + will now converge to a metric of 16 for the vanished network at all + gateways. + + Unfortunately, the question of how long convergence will take is not + amenable to quite so simple an answer. Before going any further, it + will be useful to look at an example (taken from [2]). Note, by the + way, that what we are about to show will not happen with a correct + implementation of RIP. We are trying to show why certain features + are needed. Note that the letters correspond to gateways, and the + lines to networks. + + A-----B + \ / \ + \ / | + C / all networks have cost 1, except + | / for the direct link from C to D, which + |/ has cost 10 + D + |<=== target network + + + + +Hedrick [Page 12] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + Each gateway will have a table showing a route to each network. + + However, for purposes of this illustration, we show only the routes + from each gateway to the network marked at the bottom of the diagram. + + D: directly connected, metric 1 + B: route via D, metric 2 + C: route via B, metric 3 + A: route via B, metric 3 + + Now suppose that the link from B to D fails. The routes should now + adjust to use the link from C to D. Unfortunately, it will take a + while for this to this to happen. The routing changes start when B + notices that the route to D is no longer usable. For simplicity, the + chart below assumes that all gateways send updates at the same time. + The chart shows the metric for the target network, as it appears in + the routing table at each gateway. + + time ------> + + D: dir, 1 dir, 1 dir, 1 dir, 1 ... dir, 1 dir, 1 + B: unreach C, 4 C, 5 C, 6 C, 11 C, 12 + C: B, 3 A, 4 A, 5 A, 6 A, 11 D, 11 + A: B, 3 C, 4 C, 5 C, 6 C, 11 C, 12 + + dir = directly connected + unreach = unreachable + + Here's the problem: B is able to get rid of its failed route using a + timeout mechanism. But vestiges of that route persist in the system + for a long time. Initially, A and C still think they can get to D + via B. So, they keep sending updates listing metrics of 3. In the + next iteration, B will then claim that it can get to D via either A + or C. Of course, it can't. The routes being claimed by A and C are + now gone, but they have no way of knowing that yet. And even when + they discover that their routes via B have gone away, they each think + there is a route available via the other. Eventually the system + converges, as all the mathematics claims it must. But it can take + some time to do so. The worst case is when a network becomes + completely inaccessible from some part of the system. In that case, + the metrics may increase slowly in a pattern like the one above until + they finally reach infinity. For this reason, the problem is called + "counting to infinity". + + You should now see why "infinity" is chosen to be as small as + possible. If a network becomes completely inaccessible, we want + counting to infinity to be stopped as soon as possible. Infinity + must be large enough that no real route is that big. But it + + + +Hedrick [Page 13] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + shouldn't be any bigger than required. Thus the choice of infinity + is a tradeoff between network size and speed of convergence in case + counting to infinity happens. The designers of RIP believed that the + protocol was unlikely to be practical for networks with a diameter + larger than 15. + + There are several things that can be done to prevent problems like + this. The ones used by RIP are called "split horizon with poisoned + reverse", and "triggered updates". + +2.2.1. Split horizon + + Note that some of the problem above is caused by the fact that A and + C are engaged in a pattern of mutual deception. Each claims to be + able to get to D via the other. This can be prevented by being a bit + more careful about where information is sent. In particular, it is + never useful to claim reachability for a destination network to the + neighbor(s) from which the route was learned. "Split horizon" is a + scheme for avoiding problems caused by including routes in updates + sent to the gateway from which they were learned. The "simple split + horizon" scheme omits routes learned from one neighbor in updates + sent to that neighbor. "Split horizon with poisoned reverse" + includes such routes in updates, but sets their metrics to infinity. + + If A thinks it can get to D via C, its messages to C should indicate + that D is unreachable. If the route through C is real, then C either + has a direct connection to D, or a connection through some other + gateway. C's route can't possibly go back to A, since that forms a + loop. By telling C that D is unreachable, A simply guards against + the possibility that C might get confused and believe that there is a + route through A. This is obvious for a point to point line. But + consider the possibility that A and C are connected by a broadcast + network such as an Ethernet, and there are other gateways on that + network. If A has a route through C, it should indicate that D is + unreachable when talking to any other gateway on that network. The + other gateways on the network can get to C themselves. They would + never need to get to C via A. If A's best route is really through C, + no other gateway on that network needs to know that A can reach D. + This is fortunate, because it means that the same update message that + is used for C can be used for all other gateways on the same network. + Thus, update messages can be sent by broadcast. + + In general, split horizon with poisoned reverse is safer than simple + split horizon. If two gateways have routes pointing at each other, + advertising reverse routes with a metric of 16 will break the loop + immediately. If the reverse routes are simply not advertised, the + erroneous routes will have to be eliminated by waiting for a timeout. + However, poisoned reverse does have a disadvantage: it increases the + + + +Hedrick [Page 14] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + size of the routing messages. Consider the case of a campus backbone + connecting a number of different buildings. In each building, there + is a gateway connecting the backbone to a local network. Consider + what routing updates those gateways should broadcast on the backbone + network. All that the rest of the network really needs to know about + each gateway is what local networks it is connected to. Using simple + split horizon, only those routes would appear in update messages sent + by the gateway to the backbone network. If split horizon with + poisoned reverse is used, the gateway must mention all routes that it + learns from the backbone, with metrics of 16. If the system is + large, this can result in a large update message, almost all of whose + entries indicate unreachable networks. + + In a static sense, advertising reverse routes with a metric of 16 + provides no additional information. If there are many gateways on + one broadcast network, these extra entries can use significant + bandwidth. The reason they are there is to improve dynamic behavior. + When topology changes, mentioning routes that should not go through + the gateway as well as those that should can speed up convergence. + However, in some situations, network managers may prefer to accept + somewhat slower convergence in order to minimize routing overhead. + Thus implementors may at their option implement simple split horizon + rather than split horizon with poisoned reverse, or they may provide + a configuration option that allows the network manager to choose + which behavior to use. It is also permissible to implement hybrid + schemes that advertise some reverse routes with a metric of 16 and + omit others. An example of such a scheme would be to use a metric of + 16 for reverse routes for a certain period of time after routing + changes involving them, and thereafter omitting them from updates. + +2.2.2. Triggered updates + + Split horizon with poisoned reverse will prevent any routing loops + that involve only two gateways. However, it is still possible to end + up with patterns in which three gateways are engaged in mutual + deception. For example, A may believe it has a route through B, B + through C, and C through A. Split horizon cannot stop such a loop. + This loop will only be resolved when the metric reaches infinity and + the network involved is then declared unreachable. Triggered updates + are an attempt to speed up this convergence. To get triggered + updates, we simply add a rule that whenever a gateway changes the + metric for a route, it is required to send update messages almost + immediately, even if it is not yet time for one of the regular update + message. (The timing details will differ from protocol to protocol. + Some distance vector protocols, including RIP, specify a small time + delay, in order to avoid having triggered updates generate excessive + network traffic.) Note how this combines with the rules for + computing new metrics. Suppose a gateway's route to destination N + + + +Hedrick [Page 15] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + goes through gateway G. If an update arrives from G itself, the + receiving gateway is required to believe the new information, whether + the new metric is higher or lower than the old one. If the result is + a change in metric, then the receiving gateway will send triggered + updates to all the hosts and gateways directly connected to it. They + in turn may each send updates to their neighbors. The result is a + cascade of triggered updates. It is easy to show which gateways and + hosts are involved in the cascade. Suppose a gateway G times out a + route to destination N. G will send triggered updates to all of its + neighbors. However, the only neighbors who will believe the new + information are those whose routes for N go through G. The other + gateways and hosts will see this as information about a new route + that is worse than the one they are already using, and ignore it. + The neighbors whose routes go through G will update their metrics and + send triggered updates to all of their neighbors. Again, only those + neighbors whose routes go through them will pay attention. Thus, the + triggered updates will propagate backwards along all paths leading to + gateway G, updating the metrics to infinity. This propagation will + stop as soon as it reaches a portion of the network whose route to + destination N takes some other path. + + If the system could be made to sit still while the cascade of + triggered updates happens, it would be possible to prove that + counting to infinity will never happen. Bad routes would always be + removed immediately, and so no routing loops could form. + + Unfortunately, things are not so nice. While the triggered updates + are being sent, regular updates may be happening at the same time. + Gateways that haven't received the triggered update yet will still be + sending out information based on the route that no longer exists. It + is possible that after the triggered update has gone through a + gateway, it might receive a normal update from one of these gateways + that hasn't yet gotten the word. This could reestablish an orphaned + remnant of the faulty route. If triggered updates happen quickly + enough, this is very unlikely. However, counting to infinity is + still possible. + +3. Specifications for the protocol + + RIP is intended to allow hosts and gateways to exchange information + for computing routes through an IP-based network. RIP is a distance + vector protocol. Thus, it has the general features described in + section 2. RIP may be implemented by both hosts and gateways. As in + most IP documentation, the term "host" will be used here to cover + either. RIP is used to convey information about routes to + "destinations", which may be individual hosts, networks, or a special + destination used to convey a default route. + + + + +Hedrick [Page 16] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + Any host that uses RIP is assumed to have interfaces to one or more + networks. These are referred to as its "directly-connected + networks". The protocol relies on access to certain information + about each of these networks. The most important is its metric or + "cost". The metric of a network is an integer between 1 and 15 + inclusive. It is set in some manner not specified in this protocol. + Most existing implementations always use a metric of 1. New + implementations should allow the system administrator to set the cost + of each network. In addition to the cost, each network will have an + IP network number and a subnet mask associated with it. These are to + be set by the system administrator in a manner not specified in this + protocol. + + Note that the rules specified in section 3.2 assume that there is a + single subnet mask applying to each IP network, and that only the + subnet masks for directly-connected networks are known. There may be + systems that use different subnet masks for different subnets within + a single network. There may also be instances where it is desirable + for a system to know the subnets masks of distant networks. However, + such situations will require modifications of the rules which govern + the spread of subnet information. Such modifications raise issues of + interoperability, and thus must be viewed as modifying the protocol. + + Each host that implements RIP is assumed to have a routing table. + This table has one entry for every destination that is reachable + through the system described by RIP. Each entry contains at least + the following information: + + - The IP address of the destination. + + - A metric, which represents the total cost of getting a + datagram from the host to that destination. This metric is + the sum of the costs associated with the networks that + would be traversed in getting to the destination. + + - The IP address of the next gateway along the path to the + destination. If the destination is on one of the + directly-connected networks, this item is not needed. + + - A flag to indicate that information about the route has + changed recently. This will be referred to as the "route + change flag." + + - Various timers associated with the route. See section 3.3 + for more details on them. + + The entries for the directly-connected networks are set up by the + host, using information gathered by means not specified in this + + + +Hedrick [Page 17] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + protocol. The metric for a directly-connected network is set to the + cost of that network. In existing RIP implementations, 1 is always + used for the cost. In that case, the RIP metric reduces to a simple + hop-count. More complex metrics may be used when it is desirable to + show preference for some networks over others, for example because of + differences in bandwidth or reliability. + + Implementors may also choose to allow the system administrator to + enter additional routes. These would most likely be routes to hosts + or networks outside the scope of the routing system. + + Entries for destinations other these initial ones are added and + updated by the algorithms described in the following sections. + + In order for the protocol to provide complete information on routing, + every gateway in the system must participate in it. Hosts that are + not gateways need not participate, but many implementations make + provisions for them to listen to routing information in order to + allow them to maintain their routing tables. + +3.1. Message formats + + RIP is a UDP-based protocol. Each host that uses RIP has a routing + process that sends and receives datagrams on UDP port number 520. + All communications directed at another host's RIP processor are sent + to port 520. All routing update messages are sent from port 520. + Unsolicited routing update messages have both the source and + destination port equal to 520. Those sent in response to a request + are sent to the port from which the request came. Specific queries + and debugging requests may be sent from ports other than 520, but + they are directed to port 520 on the target machine. + + There are provisions in the protocol to allow "silent" RIP processes. + A silent process is one that normally does not send out any messages. + However, it listens to messages sent by others. A silent RIP might + be used by hosts that do not act as gateways, but wish to listen to + routing updates in order to monitor local gateways and to keep their + internal routing tables up to date. (See [5] for a discussion of + various ways that hosts can keep track of network topology.) A + gateway that has lost contact with all but one of its networks might + choose to become silent, since it is effectively no longer a gateway. + + However, this should not be done if there is any chance that + neighboring gateways might depend upon its messages to detect that + the failed network has come back into operation. (The 4BSD routed + program uses routing packets to monitor the operation of point-to- + point links.) + + + + +Hedrick [Page 18] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + The packet format is shown in Figure 1. + + Format of datagrams containing network information. Field sizes + are given in octets. Unless otherwise specified, fields contain + binary integers, in normal Internet order with the most-significant + octet first. Each tick mark represents one bit. + + 0 1 2 3 3 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | command (1) | version (1) | must be zero (2) | + +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ + | address family identifier (2) | must be zero (2) | + +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+ + | IP address (4) | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ + | must be zero (4) | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ + | must be zero (4) | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ + | metric (4) | + +---------------------------------------------------------------+ + . + . + . + The portion of the datagram from address family identifier through + metric may appear up to 25 times. IP address is the usual 4-octet + Internet address, in network order. + + Figure 1. Packet format + + Every datagram contains a command, a version number, and possible + arguments. This document describes version 1 of the protocol. + Details of processing the version number are described in section + 3.4. The command field is used to specify the purpose of this + datagram. Here is a summary of the commands implemented in version + 1: + + 1 - request A request for the responding system to send all or + part of its routing table. + + 2 - response A message containing all or part of the sender's + routing table. This message may be sent in response + to a request or poll, or it may be an update message + generated by the sender. + + 3 - traceon Obsolete. Messages containing this command are to be + ignored. + + + +Hedrick [Page 19] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + 4 - traceoff Obsolete. Messages containing this command are to be + ignored. + + 5 - reserved This value is used by Sun Microsystems for its own + purposes. If new commands are added in any + succeeding version, they should begin with 6. + Messages containing this command may safely be + ignored by implementations that do not choose to + respond to it. + + For request and response, the rest of the datagram contains a list of + destinations, with information about each. Each entry in this list + contains a destination network or host, and the metric for it. The + packet format is intended to allow RIP to carry routing information + for several different protocols. Thus, each entry has an address + family identifier to indicate what type of address is specified in + that entry. This document only describes routing for Internet + networks. The address family identifier for IP is 2. None of the + RIP implementations available to the author implement any other type + of address. However, to allow for future development, + implementations are required to skip entries that specify address + families that are not supported by the implementation. (The size of + these entries will be the same as the size of an entry specifying an + IP address.) Processing of the message continues normally after any + unsupported entries are skipped. The IP address is the usual + Internet address, stored as 4 octets in network order. The metric + field must contain a value between 1 and 15 inclusive, specifying the + current metric for the destination, or the value 16, which indicates + that the destination is not reachable. Each route sent by a gateway + supercedes any previous route to the same destination from the same + gateway. + + The maximum datagram size is 512 octets. This includes only the + portions of the datagram described above. It does not count the IP + or UDP headers. The commands that involve network information allow + information to be split across several datagrams. No special + provisions are needed for continuations, since correct results will + occur if the datagrams are processed individually. + +3.2. Addressing considerations + + As indicated in section 2, distance vector routing can be used to + describe routes to individual hosts or to networks. The RIP protocol + allows either of these possibilities. The destinations appearing in + request and response messages can be networks, hosts, or a special + code used to indicate a default address. In general, the kinds of + routes actually used will depend upon the routing strategy used for + the particular network. Many networks are set up so that routing + + + +Hedrick [Page 20] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + information for individual hosts is not needed. If every host on a + given network or subnet is accessible through the same gateways, then + there is no reason to mention individual hosts in the routing tables. + However, networks that include point to point lines sometimes require + gateways to keep track of routes to certain hosts. Whether this + feature is required depends upon the addressing and routing approach + used in the system. Thus, some implementations may choose not to + support host routes. If host routes are not supported, they are to + be dropped when they are received in response messages. (See section + 3.4.2.) + + The RIP packet formats do not distinguish among various types of + address. Fields that are labeled "address" can contain any of the + following: + + host address + subnet number + network number + 0, indicating a default route + + Entities that use RIP are assumed to use the most specific + information available when routing a datagram. That is, when routing + a datagram, its destination address must first be checked against the + list of host addresses. Then it must be checked to see whether it + matches any known subnet or network number. Finally, if none of + these match, the default route is used. + + When a host evaluates information that it receives via RIP, its + interpretation of an address depends upon whether it knows the subnet + mask that applies to the net. If so, then it is possible to + determine the meaning of the address. For example, consider net + 128.6. It has a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. Thus 128.6.0.0 is a + network number, 128.6.4.0 is a subnet number, and 128.6.4.1 is a host + address. However, if the host does not know the subnet mask, + evaluation of an address may be ambiguous. If there is a non-zero + host part, there is no clear way to determine whether the address + represents a subnet number or a host address. As a subnet number + would be useless without the subnet mask, addresses are assumed to + represent hosts in this situation. In order to avoid this sort of + ambiguity, hosts must not send subnet routes to hosts that cannot be + expected to know the appropriate subnet mask. Normally hosts only + know the subnet masks for directly-connected networks. Therefore, + unless special provisions have been made, routes to a subnet must not + be sent outside the network of which the subnet is a part. + + This filtering is carried out by the gateways at the "border" of the + subnetted network. These are gateways that connect that network with + some other network. Within the subnetted network, each subnet is + + + +Hedrick [Page 21] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + treated as an individual network. Routing entries for each subnet + are circulated by RIP. However, border gateways send only a single + entry for the network as a whole to hosts in other networks. This + means that a border gateway will send different information to + different neighbors. For neighbors connected to the subnetted + network, it generates a list of all subnets to which it is directly + connected, using the subnet number. For neighbors connected to other + networks, it makes a single entry for the network as a whole, showing + the metric associated with that network. (This metric would normally + be the smallest metric for the subnets to which the gateway is + attached.) + + Similarly, border gateways must not mention host routes for hosts + within one of the directly-connected networks in messages to other + networks. Those routes will be subsumed by the single entry for the + network as a whole. We do not specify what to do with host routes + for "distant" hosts (i.e., hosts not part of one of the directly- + connected networks). Generally, these routes indicate some host that + is reachable via a route that does not support other hosts on the + network of which the host is a part. + + The special address 0.0.0.0 is used to describe a default route. A + default route is used when it is not convenient to list every + possible network in the RIP updates, and when one or more closely- + connected gateways in the system are prepared to handle traffic to + the networks that are not listed explicitly. These gateways should + create RIP entries for the address 0.0.0.0, just as if it were a + network to which they are connected. The decision as to how gateways + create entries for 0.0.0.0 is left to the implementor. Most + commonly, the system administrator will be provided with a way to + specify which gateways should create entries for 0.0.0.0. However, + other mechanisms are possible. For example, an implementor might + decide that any gateway that speaks EGP should be declared to be a + default gateway. It may be useful to allow the network administrator + to choose the metric to be used in these entries. If there is more + than one default gateway, this will make it possible to express a + preference for one over the other. The entries for 0.0.0.0 are + handled by RIP in exactly the same manner as if there were an actual + network with this address. However, the entry is used to route any + datagram whose destination address does not match any other network + in the table. Implementations are not required to support this + convention. However, it is strongly recommended. Implementations + that do not support 0.0.0.0 must ignore entries with this address. + In such cases, they must not pass the entry on in their own RIP + updates. System administrators should take care to make sure that + routes to 0.0.0.0 do not propagate further than is intended. + Generally, each autonomous system has its own preferred default + gateway. Thus, routes involving 0.0.0.0 should generally not leave + + + +Hedrick [Page 22] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + the boundary of an autonomous system. The mechanisms for enforcing + this are not specified in this document. + +3.3. Timers + + This section describes all events that are triggered by timers. + + Every 30 seconds, the output process is instructed to generate a + complete response to every neighboring gateway. When there are many + gateways on a single network, there is a tendency for them to + synchronize with each other such that they all issue updates at the + same time. This can happen whenever the 30 second timer is affected + by the processing load on the system. It is undesirable for the + update messages to become synchronized, since it can lead to + unnecessary collisions on broadcast networks. Thus, implementations + are required to take one of two precautions. + + - The 30-second updates are triggered by a clock whose rate + is not affected by system load or the time required to + service the previous update timer. + + - The 30-second timer is offset by addition of a small random + time each time it is set. + + There are two timers associated with each route, a "timeout" and a + "garbage-collection time". Upon expiration of the timeout, the route + is no longer valid. However, it is retained in the table for a short + time, so that neighbors can be notified that the route has been + dropped. Upon expiration of the garbage-collection timer, the route + is finally removed from the tables. + + The timeout is initialized when a route is established, and any time + an update message is received for the route. If 180 seconds elapse + from the last time the timeout was initialized, the route is + considered to have expired, and the deletion process which we are + about to describe is started for it. + + Deletions can occur for one of two reasons: (1) the timeout expires, + or (2) the metric is set to 16 because of an update received from the + current gateway. (See section 3.4.2 for a discussion processing + updates from other gateways.) In either case, the following events + happen: + + - The garbage-collection timer is set for 120 seconds. + + - The metric for the route is set to 16 (infinity). This + causes the route to be removed from service. + + + + +Hedrick [Page 23] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + - A flag is set noting that this entry has been changed, and + the output process is signalled to trigger a response. + + Until the garbage-collection timer expires, the route is included in + all updates sent by this host, with a metric of 16 (infinity). When + the garbage-collection timer expires, the route is deleted from the + tables. + + Should a new route to this network be established while the garbage- + collection timer is running, the new route will replace the one that + is about to be deleted. In this case the garbage-collection timer + must be cleared. + + See section 3.5 for a discussion of a delay that is required in + carrying out triggered updates. Although implementation of that + delay will require a timer, it is more natural to discuss it in + section 3.5 than here. + +3.4. Input processing + + This section will describe the handling of datagrams received on UDP + port 520. Before processing the datagrams in detail, certain general + format checks must be made. These depend upon the version number + field in the datagram, as follows: + + 0 Datagrams whose version number is zero are to be ignored. + These are from a previous version of the protocol, whose + packet format was machine-specific. + + 1 Datagrams whose version number is one are to be processed + as described in the rest of this specification. All fields + that are described above as "must be zero" are to be checked. + If any such field contains a non-zero value, the entire + message is to be ignored. + + >1 Datagrams whose version number are greater than one are + to be processed as described in the rest of this + specification. All fields that are described above as + "must be zero" are to be ignored. Future versions of the + protocol may put data into these fields. Version 1 + implementations are to ignore this extra data and process + only the fields specified in this document. + + After checking the version number and doing any other preliminary + checks, processing will depend upon the value in the command field. + + + + + + +Hedrick [Page 24] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + +3.4.1. Request + + Request is used to ask for a response containing all or part of the + host's routing table. [Note that the term host is used for either + host or gateway, in most cases it would be unusual for a non-gateway + host to send RIP messages.] Normally, requests are sent as + broadcasts, from a UDP source port of 520. In this case, silent + processes do not respond to the request. Silent processes are by + definition processes for which we normally do not want to see routing + information. However, there may be situations involving gateway + monitoring where it is desired to look at the routing table even for + a silent process. In this case, the request should be sent from a + UDP port number other than 520. If a request comes from port 520, + silent processes do not respond. If the request comes from any other + port, processes must respond even if they are silent. + + The request is processed entry by entry. If there are no entries, no + response is given. There is one special case. If there is exactly + one entry in the request, with an address family identifier of 0 + (meaning unspecified), and a metric of infinity (i.e., 16 for current + implementations), this is a request to send the entire routing table. + In that case, a call is made to the output process to send the + routing table to the requesting port. + + Except for this special case, processing is quite simple. Go down + the list of entries in the request one by one. For each entry, look + up the destination in the host's routing database. If there is a + route, put that route's metric in the metric field in the datagram. + If there isn't a route to the specified destination, put infinity + (i.e., 16) in the metric field in the datagram. Once all the entries + have been filled in, set the command to response and send the + datagram back to the port from which it came. + + Note that there is a difference in handling depending upon whether + the request is for a specified set of destinations, or for a complete + routing table. If the request is for a complete host table, normal + output processing is done. This includes split horizon (see section + 2.2.1) and subnet hiding (section 3.2), so that certain entries from + the routing table will not be shown. If the request is for specific + entries, they are looked up in the host table and the information is + returned. No split horizon processing is done, and subnets are + returned if requested. We anticipate that these requests are likely + to be used for different purposes. When a host first comes up, it + broadcasts requests on every connected network asking for a complete + routing table. In general, we assume that complete routing tables + are likely to be used to update another host's routing table. For + this reason, split horizon and all other filtering must be used. + Requests for specific networks are made only by diagnostic software, + + + +Hedrick [Page 25] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + and are not used for routing. In this case, the requester would want + to know the exact contents of the routing database, and would not + want any information hidden. + +3.4.2. Response + + Responses can be received for several different reasons: + + response to a specific query + regular updates + triggered updates triggered by a metric change + + Processing is the same no matter how responses were generated. + + Because processing of a response may update the host's routing table, + the response must be checked carefully for validity. The response + must be ignored if it is not from port 520. The IP source address + should be checked to see whether the datagram is from a valid + neighbor. The source of the datagram must be on a directly-connected + network. It is also worth checking to see whether the response is + from one of the host's own addresses. Interfaces on broadcast + networks may receive copies of their own broadcasts immediately. If + a host processes its own output as new input, confusion is likely, + and such datagrams must be ignored (except as discussed in the next + paragraph). + + Before actually processing a response, it may be useful to use its + presence as input to a process for keeping track of interface status. + As mentioned above, we time out a route when we haven't heard from + its gateway for a certain amount of time. This works fine for routes + that come from another gateway. It is also desirable to know when + one of our own directly-connected networks has failed. This document + does not specify any particular method for doing this, as such + methods depend upon the characteristics of the network and the + hardware interface to it. However, such methods often involve + listening for datagrams arriving on the interface. Arriving + datagrams can be used as an indication that the interface is working. + However, some caution must be used, as it is possible for interfaces + to fail in such a way that input datagrams are received, but output + datagrams are never sent successfully. + + Now that the datagram as a whole has been validated, process the + entries in it one by one. Again, start by doing validation. If the + metric is greater than infinity, ignore the entry. (This should be + impossible, if the other host is working correctly. Incorrect + metrics and other format errors should probably cause alerts or be + logged.) Then look at the destination address. Check the address + family identifier. If it is not a value which is expected (e.g., 2 + + + +Hedrick [Page 26] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + for Internet addresses), ignore the entry. Now check the address + itself for various kinds of inappropriate addresses. Ignore the + entry if the address is class D or E, if it is on net 0 (except for + 0.0.0.0, if we accept default routes) or if it is on net 127 (the + loopback network). Also, test for a broadcast address, i.e., + anything whose host part is all ones on a network that supports + broadcast, and ignore any such entry. If the implementor has chosen + not to support host routes (see section 3.2), check to see whether + the host portion of the address is non-zero; if so, ignore the entry. + + Recall that the address field contains a number of unused octets. If + the version number of the datagram is 1, they must also be checked. + If any of them is nonzero, the entry is to be ignored. (Many of + these cases indicate that the host from which the message came is not + working correctly. Thus some form of error logging or alert should + be triggered.) + + Update the metric by adding the cost of the network on which the + message arrived. If the result is greater than 16, use 16. That is, + + metric = MIN (metric + cost, 16) + + Now look up the address to see whether this is already a route for + it. In general, if not, we want to add one. However, there are + various exceptions. If the metric is infinite, don't add an entry. + (We would update an existing one, but we don't add new entries with + infinite metric.) We want to avoid adding routes to hosts if the + host is part of a net or subnet for which we have at least as good a + route. If neither of these exceptions applies, add a new entry to + the routing database. This includes the following actions: + + - Set the destination and metric to those from the datagram. + + - Set the gateway to be the host from which the datagram + came. + + - Initialize the timeout for the route. If the garbage- + collection timer is running for this route, stop it. (See + section 3.3 for a discussion of the timers.) + + - Set the route change flag, and signal the output process to + trigger an update (see 3.5). + + If there is an existing route, first compare gateways. If this + datagram is from the same gateway as the existing route, reinitialize + the timeout. Next compare metrics. If the datagram is from the same + gateway as the existing route and the new metric is different than + the old one, or if the new metric is lower than the old one, do the + + + +Hedrick [Page 27] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + following actions: + + - adopt the route from the datagram. That is, put the new + metric in, and set the gateway to be the host from which + the datagram came. + + - Initialize the timeout for the route. + + - Set the route change flag, and signal the output process to + trigger an update (see 3.5). + + - If the new metric is 16 (infinity), the deletion process is + started. + + If the new metric is 16 (infinity), this starts the process for + deleting the route. The route is no longer used for routing packets, + and the deletion timer is started (see section 3.3). Note that a + deletion is started only when the metric is first set to 16. If the + metric was already 16, then a new deletion is not started. (Starting + a deletion sets a timer. The concern is that we do not want to reset + the timer every 30 seconds, as new messages arrive with an infinite + metric.) + + If the new metric is the same as the old one, it is simplest to do + nothing further (beyond reinitializing the timeout, as specified + above). However, the 4BSD routed uses an additional heuristic here. + Normally, it is senseless to change to a route with the same metric + as the existing route but a different gateway. If the existing route + is showing signs of timing out, though, it may be better to switch to + an equally-good alternative route immediately, rather than waiting + for the timeout to happen. (See section 3.3 for a discussion of + timeouts.) Therefore, if the new metric is the same as the old one, + routed looks at the timeout for the existing route. If it is at + least halfway to the expiration point, routed switches to the new + route. That is, the gateway is changed to the source of the current + message. This heuristic is optional. + + Any entry that fails these tests is ignored, as it is no better than + the current route. + +3.5. Output Processing + + This section describes the processing used to create response + messages that contain all or part of the routing table. This + processing may be triggered in any of the following ways: + + - by input processing when a request is seen. In this case, + the resulting message is sent to only one destination. + + + +Hedrick [Page 28] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + - by the regular routing update. Every 30 seconds, a + response containing the whole routing table is sent to + every neighboring gateway. (See section 3.3.) + + - by triggered updates. Whenever the metric for a route is + changed, an update is triggered. (The update may be + delayed; see below.) + + Before describing the way a message is generated for each directly- + connected network, we will comment on how the destinations are chosen + for the latter two cases. Normally, when a response is to be sent to + all destinations (that is, either the regular update or a triggered + update is being prepared), a response is sent to the host at the + opposite end of each connected point-to-point link, and a response is + broadcast on all connected networks that support broadcasting. Thus, + one response is prepared for each directly-connected network and sent + to the corresponding (destination or broadcast) address. In most + cases, this reaches all neighboring gateways. However, there are + some cases where this may not be good enough. This may involve a + network that does not support broadcast (e.g., the ARPANET), or a + situation involving dumb gateways. In such cases, it may be + necessary to specify an actual list of neighboring hosts and + gateways, and send a datagram to each one explicitly. It is left to + the implementor to determine whether such a mechanism is needed, and + to define how the list is specified. + + Triggered updates require special handling for two reasons. First, + experience shows that triggered updates can cause excessive loads on + networks with limited capacity or with many gateways on them. Thus + the protocol requires that implementors include provisions to limit + the frequency of triggered updates. After a triggered update is + sent, a timer should be set for a random time between 1 and 5 + seconds. If other changes that would trigger updates occur before + the timer expires, a single update is triggered when the timer + expires, and the timer is then set to another random value between 1 + and 5 seconds. Triggered updates may be suppressed if a regular + update is due by the time the triggered update would be sent. + + Second, triggered updates do not need to include the entire routing + table. In principle, only those routes that have changed need to be + included. Thus messages generated as part of a triggered update must + include at least those routes that have their route change flag set. + They may include additional routes, or all routes, at the discretion + of the implementor; however, when full routing updates require + multiple packets, sending all routes is strongly discouraged. When a + triggered update is processed, messages should be generated for every + directly-connected network. Split horizon processing is done when + generating triggered updates as well as normal updates (see below). + + + +Hedrick [Page 29] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + If, after split horizon processing, a changed route will appear + identical on a network as it did previously, the route need not be + sent; if, as a result, no routes need be sent, the update may be + omitted on that network. (If a route had only a metric change, or + uses a new gateway that is on the same network as the old gateway, + the route will be sent to the network of the old gateway with a + metric of infinity both before and after the change.) Once all of + the triggered updates have been generated, the route change flags + should be cleared. + + If input processing is allowed while output is being generated, + appropriate interlocking must be done. The route change flags should + not be changed as a result of processing input while a triggered + update message is being generated. + + The only difference between a triggered update and other update + messages is the possible omission of routes that have not changed. + The rest of the mechanisms about to be described must all apply to + triggered updates. + + Here is how a response datagram is generated for a particular + directly-connected network: + + The IP source address must be the sending host's address on that + network. This is important because the source address is put into + routing tables in other hosts. If an incorrect source address is + used, other hosts may be unable to route datagrams. Sometimes + gateways are set up with multiple IP addresses on a single physical + interface. Normally, this means that several logical IP networks are + being carried over one physical medium. In such cases, a separate + update message must be sent for each address, with that address as + the IP source address. + + Set the version number to the current version of RIP. (The version + described in this document is 1.) Set the command to response. Set + the bytes labeled "must be zero" to zero. Now start filling in + entries. + + To fill in the entries, go down all the routes in the internal + routing table. Recall that the maximum datagram size is 512 bytes. + When there is no more space in the datagram, send the current message + and start a new one. If a triggered update is being generated, only + entries whose route change flags are set need be included. + + See the description in Section 3.2 for a discussion of problems + raised by subnet and host routes. Routes to subnets will be + meaningless outside the network, and must be omitted if the + destination is not on the same subnetted network; they should be + + + +Hedrick [Page 30] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + replaced with a single route to the network of which the subnets are + a part. Similarly, routes to hosts must be eliminated if they are + subsumed by a network route, as described in the discussion in + Section 3.2. + + If the route passes these tests, then the destination and metric are + put into the entry in the output datagram. Routes must be included + in the datagram even if their metrics are infinite. If the gateway + for the route is on the network for which the datagram is being + prepared, the metric in the entry is set to 16, or the entire entry + is omitted. Omitting the entry is simple split horizon. Including + an entry with metric 16 is split horizon with poisoned reverse. See + Section 2.2 for a more complete discussion of these alternatives. + +3.6. Compatibility + + The protocol described in this document is intended to interoperate + with routed and other existing implementations of RIP. However, a + different viewpoint is adopted about when to increment the metric + than was used in most previous implementations. Using the previous + perspective, the internal routing table has a metric of 0 for all + directly-connected networks. The cost (which is always 1) is added + to the metric when the route is sent in an update message. By + contrast, in this document directly-connected networks appear in the + internal routing table with metrics equal to their costs; the metrics + are not necessarily 1. In this document, the cost is added to the + metrics when routes are received in update messages. Metrics from + the routing table are sent in update messages without change (unless + modified by split horizon). + + These two viewpoints result in identical update messages being sent. + Metrics in the routing table differ by a constant one in the two + descriptions. Thus, there is no difference in effect. The change + was made because the new description makes it easier to handle + situations where different metrics are used on directly-attached + networks. + + Implementations that only support network costs of one need not + change to match the new style of presentation. However, they must + follow the description given in this document in all other ways. + +4. Control functions + + This section describes administrative controls. These are not part + of the protocol per se. However, experience with existing networks + suggests that they are important. Because they are not a necessary + part of the protocol, they are considered optional. However, we + strongly recommend that at least some of them be included in every + + + +Hedrick [Page 31] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + implementation. + + These controls are intended primarily to allow RIP to be connected to + networks whose routing may be unstable or subject to errors. Here + are some examples: + + It is sometimes desirable to limit the hosts and gateways from which + information will be accepted. On occasion, hosts have been + misconfigured in such a way that they begin sending inappropriate + information. + + A number of sites limit the set of networks that they allow in update + messages. Organization A may have a connection to organization B + that they use for direct communication. For security or performance + reasons A may not be willing to give other organizations access to + that connection. In such cases, A should not include B's networks in + updates that A sends to third parties. + + Here are some typical controls. Note, however, that the RIP protocol + does not require these or any other controls. + + - a neighbor list - the network administrator should be able + to define a list of neighbors for each host. A host would + accept response messages only from hosts on its list of + neighbors. + + - allowing or disallowing specific destinations - the network + administrator should be able to specify a list of + destination addresses to allow or disallow. The list would + be associated with a particular interface in the incoming + or outgoing direction. Only allowed networks would be + mentioned in response messages going out or processed in + response messages coming in. If a list of allowed + addresses is specified, all other addresses are disallowed. + If a list of disallowed addresses is specified, all other + addresses are allowed. + +REFERENCES and BIBLIOGRAPHY + + [1] Bellman, R. E., "Dynamic Programming", Princeton University + Press, Princeton, N.J., 1957. + + [2] Bertsekas, D. P., and Gallaher, R. G., "Data Networks", + Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1987. + + [3] Braden, R., and Postel, J., "Requirements for Internet Gateways", + USC/Information Sciences Institute, RFC-1009, June 1987. + + + + +Hedrick [Page 32] + +RFC 1058 Routing Information Protocol June 1988 + + + [4] Boggs, D. R., Shoch, J. F., Taft, E. A., and Metcalfe, R. M., + "Pup: An Internetwork Architecture", IEEE Transactions on + Communications, April 1980. + + [5] Clark, D. D., "Fault Isolation and Recovery," MIT-LCS, RFC-816, + July 1982. + + [6] Ford, L. R. Jr., and Fulkerson, D. R., "Flows in Networks", + Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1962. + + [7] Xerox Corp., "Internet Transport Protocols", Xerox System + Integration Standard XSIS 028112, December 1981. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Hedrick [Page 33] +
\ No newline at end of file |