From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc1721.txt | 227 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 227 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc1721.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1721.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1721.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1721.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8f9ac24 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1721.txt @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group G. Malkin +Request for Comments: 1721 Xylogics, Inc. +Obsoletes: 1387 November 1994 +Category: Informational + + + RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis + +Status of this Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo + does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of + this memo is unlimited. + +Abstract + + 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 + advancing RIP-2 on the standards track. + +Acknowledgements + + 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 all his comments. + +1. Protocol Documents + + The RIP-2 applicability statement is defined in RFC 1722 [1]. + + The RIP-2 protocol description is defined in RFC 1723 [2]. This memo + obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the "Routing + Information Protocol" RFC 1058 (STD 34). + + The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1724 [3]. This memo + obsoletes RFC 1389. + +2. Key Features + + While RIP-2 shares the same basic algorithms as RIP-1, it supports + several new features. They are: external route tags, subnet masks, + next hop addresses, and authentication. + + The significant change from RFC 1388 is the removal of the domain + field. There was no clear agreement as to how the field would be + used, so it was determined to leave the field reserved for future + expansion. + + + +Malkin [Page 1] + +RFC 1721 RIP-2 Analysis November 1994 + + +2.1 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. + +2.2 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. + +2.3 Next Hop Addresses + + Support for next hop addresses allows for optimization of routes in + an environment which uses multiple routing protocols. For example, + 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. + +2.4 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 + defined. + +2.5 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 misinterpret 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 are per-peer counters which provide the + status of RIP-2 "neighbors". + + + +Malkin [Page 2] + +RFC 1721 RIP-2 Analysis November 1994 + + + The MIB was modified to deprecate the domain, which was removed from + the protocol. It has also been converted into version 2 format. + +4. Implementations + + Currently, there are three complete implementations of RIP-2: GATED, + written by Jeffrey Honig at Cornell University; Xylogics's Annex + Communication server; and an implementation for NOS, written by Jeff + White. The GATED implementation is available by anonymous FTP from + gated.cornell.edu as pub/gated/gated-alpha.tar.Z. The implementation + for NOS is available by anonymous FTP from ucsd.edu as + /hamradio/packet/tcpip/incoming/rip2.zip. + + Additionally, Midnight Networks has produced a test suite which + verifies an implementation's conformance to RFC 1388 implemented over + RFC 1058. + + The author has conducted interoperability testing between the GATED + and Xylogics implementations and found no incompatibilities. This + testing includes verification of protection provided by the + authentication mechanism described in section 2.4. + +5. Operational experience + + Xylogics has been running RIP-2 on its production systems for five + months. The topology includes seven subnets in a class B address and + various, unregistered class C addresses used for dial-up access. Six + systems, in conjunction with three routers from other vendors and + dozens of host systems, operate on those subnets. + + The only problem which has appeared is the reaction of some routers + to Version 2 RIP packets. Contrary to RFC 1058, these routers + discard Version 2 packets rather than ignoring the fields not defined + for Version 1. + +6. References + + [1] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement", RFC + 1722, Xylogics, Inc., November 1994. + + [2] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information", + RFC 1723, Xylogics, Inc., November 1994. + + [3] Malkin, G., and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension", RFC + 1724, Xylogics, Inc., Cisco Systems, November 1994. + + + + + + +Malkin [Page 3] + +RFC 1721 RIP-2 Analysis November 1994 + + +7. Security Considerations + + Security issues are discussed in sections 2.4 and 4. + +8. Author's Address + + Gary Scott Malkin + Xylogics, Inc. + 53 Third Avenue + Burlington, MA 01803 + + Phone: (617) 272-8140 + EMail: gmalkin@Xylogics.COM + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Malkin [Page 4] + -- cgit v1.2.3