path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1723.txt

Network Working Group                                          G. Malkin
Request for Comments: 1723                                Xylogics, Inc.
Obsoletes: 1388                                            November 1994
Updates: 1058
Category: Standards Track


                             RIP Version 2
                    Carrying Additional Information

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information
   Protocol (RIP), as defined in [1,2], to expand the amount of useful
   information carried in RIP messages and to add a measure of security.
   This memo obsoletes RFC 1388, which specifies an update to the
   "Routing Information Protocol" STD 34, RFC 1058.

   The RIP-2 protocol analysis is documented in RFC 1721 [4].

   The RIP-2 applicability statement is document in RFC 1722 [5].

   The RIP-2 MIB description is defined in RFC 1724 [3].  This memo
   obsoletes RFC 1389.

Acknowledgements

   I would like to thank the IETF ripv2 Working Group for their help in
   improving the RIP-2 protocol.














Malkin                                                          [Page 1]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


Table of Contents

   1.  Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   2.  Current RIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
   3.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.1   Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.2   Route Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.3   Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.4   Next Hop  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.5   Multicasting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.6   Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.1   Compatibility Switch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.2   Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.3   Larger Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.4   Addressless Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Justification

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

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

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

2. Current RIP

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

   The current RIP protocol does not consider autonomous systems and
   IGP/EGP interactions, subnetting, and authentication since
   implementations of these postdate RIP.  The lack of subnet masks is a



Malkin                                                          [Page 2]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


   particularly serious problem for routers since they need a subnet
   mask to know how to determine a route.  If a RIP route is a network
   route (all non-network bits 0), the subnet mask equals the network
   mask.  However, if some of the non-network bits are set, the router
   cannot determine the subnet mask.  Worse still, the router cannot
   determine if the RIP route is a subnet route or a host route.
   Currently, some routers simply choose the subnet mask of the
   interface over which the route was learned and determine the route
   type from that.

3. Protocol Extensions

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

   The first four octets of a RIP message contain the RIP header.  The
   remainder of the message is composed of 1 - 25 route entries (20
   octets each).  The new RIP message format is:

    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)   |           unused              |
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   | Address Family Identifier (2) |        Route Tag (2)          |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   |                         IP Address (4)                        |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                         Subnet Mask (4)                       |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                         Next Hop (4)                          |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                         Metric (4)                            |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+

   The Command, Address Family Identifier (AFI), IP Address, and Metric
   all have the meanings defined in RFC 1058.  The Version field will
   specify version number 2 for RIP messages which use authentication or
   carry information in any of the newly defined fields.  The contents
   of the unused field (two octets) shall be ignored.

   All fields are coded in IP network byte order (big-endian).








Malkin                                                          [Page 3]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


3.1 Authentication

   Since authentication is a per message function, and since there is
   only one 2-octet field available in the message header, and since any
   reasonable authentication scheme will require more than two octets,
   the authentication scheme for RIP version 2 will use the space of an
   entire RIP entry.  If the Address Family Identifier of the first (and
   only the first) entry in the message is 0xFFFF, then the remainder of
   the entry contains the authentication.  This means that there can be,
   at most, 24 RIP entries in the remainder of the message.  If
   authentication is not in use, then no entries in the message should
   have an Address Family Identifier of 0xFFFF.  A RIP message which
   contains an authentication entry would begin with the following
   format:

    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)   |            unused             |
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |             0xFFFF            |    Authentication Type (2)    |
   +-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   ~                       Authentication (16)                     ~
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+

   Currently, the only Authentication Type is simple password and it is
   type 2.  The remaining 16 octets contain the plain text password.  If
   the password is under 16 octets, it must be left-justified and padded
   to the right with nulls (0x00).

3.2 Route Tag

   The Route Tag (RT) field is an attribute assigned to a route which
   must be preserved and readvertised with a route.  The intended use of
   the Route Tag is to provide a method of separating "internal" RIP
   routes (routes for networks within the RIP routing domain) from
   "external" RIP routes, which may have been imported from an EGP or
   another IGP.

   Routers supporting protocols other than RIP should be configurable to
   allow the Route Tag to be configured for routes imported from
   different sources.  For example, routes imported from EGP or BGP
   should be able to have their Route Tag either set to an arbitrary
   value, or at least to the number of the Autonomous System from which
   the routes were learned.

   Other uses of the Route Tag are valid, as long as all routers in the
   RIP domain use it consistently.  This allows for the possibility of a



Malkin                                                          [Page 4]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


   BGP-RIP protocol interactions document, which would describe methods
   for synchronizing routing in a transit network.

3.3 Subnet mask

   The Subnet Mask field contains the subnet mask which is applied to
   the IP address to yield the non-host portion of the address.  If this
   field is zero, then no subnet mask has been included for this entry.

   On an interface where a RIP-1 router may hear and operate on the
   information in a RIP-2 routing entry the following rules apply:

   1) information internal to one network must never be advertised into
      another network,

   2) information about a more specific subnet may not be advertised
      where RIP-1 routers would consider it a host route, and

   3) supernet routes (routes with a netmask less specific than the
      "natural" network mask) must not be advertised where they could be
      misinterpreted by RIP-1 routers.

3.4 Next Hop

   The immediate next hop IP address to which packets to the destination
   specified by this route entry should be forwarded.  Specifying a
   value of 0.0.0.0 in this field indicates that routing should be via
   the originator of the RIP advertisement.  An address specified as a
   next hop must, per force, be directly reachable on the logical subnet
   over which the advertisement is made.

   The purpose of the Next Hop field is to eliminate packets being
   routed through extra hops in the system.  It is particularly useful
   when RIP is not being run on all of the routers on a network.  A
   simple example is given in Appendix A.  Note that Next Hop is an
   "advisory" field.  That is, if the provided information is ignored, a
   possibly sub-optimal, but absolutely valid, route may be taken.  If
   the received Next Hop is not directly reachable, it should be treated
   as 0.0.0.0.

3.5 Multicasting

   In order to reduce unnecessary load on those hosts which are not
   listening to RIP-2 messages, an IP multicast address will be used for
   periodic broadcasts.  The IP multicast address is 224.0.0.9.  Note
   that IGMP is not needed since these are inter-router messages which
   are not forwarded.




Malkin                                                          [Page 5]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


   In order to maintain backwards compatibility, the use of the
   multicast address will be configurable, as described in section 4.1.
   If multicasting is used, it should be used on all interfaces which
   support it.

3.6 Queries

   If a RIP-2 router receives a RIP-1 Request, it should respond with a
   RIP-1 Response.  If the router is configured to send only RIP-2
   messages, it should not respond to a RIP-1 Request.

4. Compatibility

   RFC 1058 showed considerable forethought in its specification of the
   handling of version numbers.  It specifies that RIP messages of
   version 0 are to be discarded, that RIP messages of version 1 are to
   be discarded if any Must Be Zero (MBZ) field is non-zero, and that
   RIP messages of any version greater than 1 should not be discarded
   simply because an MBZ field contains a value other than zero.  This
   means that the new version of RIP is totally backwards compatible
   with existing RIP implementations which adhere to this part of the
   specification.

4.1 Compatibility Switch

   A compatibility switch is necessary for two reasons.  First, there
   are implementations of RIP-1 in the field which do not follow RFC
   1058 as described above.  Second, the use of multicasting would
   prevent RIP-1 systems from receiving RIP-2 updates (which may be a
   desired feature in some cases).  This switch should be configurable
   on a per-interface basis.

   The switch has four settings: RIP-1, in which only RIP-1 messages are
   sent; RIP-1 compatibility, in which RIP-2 messages are broadcast;
   RIP-2, in which RIP-2 messages are multicast; and "none", which
   disables the sending of RIP messages.  The recommended default for
   this switch is RIP-1 compatibility.

   For completeness, routers should also implement a receive control
   switch which would determine whether to accept, RIP-1 only, RIP-2
   only, both, or none.  It should also be configurable on a per-
   interface basis.

4.2 Authentication

   The following algorithm should be used to authenticate a RIP message.
   If the router is not configured to authenticate RIP-2 messages, then
   RIP-1 and unauthenticated RIP-2 messages will be accepted;



Malkin                                                          [Page 6]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


   authenticated RIP-2 messages shall be discarded.  If the router is
   configured to authenticate RIP-2 messages, then RIP-1 messages and
   RIP-2 messages which pass authentication testing shall be accepted;
   unauthenticated and failed authentication RIP-2 messages shall be
   discarded.  For maximum security, RIP-1 messages should be ignored
   when authentication is in use (see section 4.1).

   Since an authentication entry is marked with an Address Family
   Identifier of 0xFFFF, a RIP-1 system would ignore this entry since it
   would belong to an address family other than IP.  It should be noted,
   therefore, that use of authentication will not prevent RIP-1 systems
   from seeing RIP-2 messages.  If desired, this may be done using
   multicasting, as described in sections 3.5 and 4.1.

4.3 Larger Infinity

   While on the subject of compatibility, there is one item which people
   have requested: increasing infinity.  The primary reason that this
   cannot be done is that it would violate backwards compatibility.  A
   larger infinity would obviously confuse older versions of rip.  At
   best, they would ignore the route as they would ignore a metric of
   16.  There was also a proposal to make the Metric a single octet and
   reuse the high three octets, but this would break any implementations
   which treat the metric as a 4-octet entity.

4.4 Addressless Links

   As in RIP-1, addressless links will not be supported by RIP-2.

5. Security Considerations

   The basic RIP protocol is not a secure protocol.  To bring RIP-2 in
   line with more modern routing protocols, an extensible authentication
   mechanism has been incorporated into the protocol enhancements.  This
   mechanism is described in sections 3.1 and 4.2.
















Malkin                                                          [Page 7]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


Appendix A

   This is a simple example of the use of the next hop field in a rip
   entry.

      -----   -----   -----           -----   -----   -----
      |IR1|   |IR2|   |IR3|           |XR1|   |XR2|   |XR3|
      --+--   --+--   --+--           --+--   --+--   --+--
        |       |       |               |       |       |
      --+-------+-------+---------------+-------+-------+--
        <-------------RIP-2------------->

   Assume that IR1, IR2, and IR3 are all "internal" routers which are
   under one administration (e.g. a campus) which has elected to use
   RIP-2 as its IGP. XR1, XR2, and XR3, on the other hand, are under
   separate administration (e.g. a regional network, of which the campus
   is a member) and are using some other routing protocol (e.g. OSPF).
   XR1, XR2, and XR3 exchange routing information among themselves such
   that they know that the best routes to networks N1 and N2 are via
   XR1, to N3, N4, and N5 are via XR2, and to N6 and N7 are via XR3. By
   setting the Next Hop field correctly (to XR2 for N3/N4/N5, to XR3 for
   N6/N7), only XR1 need exchange RIP-2 routes with IR1/IR2/IR3 for
   routing to occur without additional hops through XR1. Without the
   Next Hop (for example, if RIP-1 were used) it would be necessary for
   XR2 and XR3 to also participate in the RIP-2 protocol to eliminate
   extra hops.

References

   [1] Hedrick, C., "Routing Information Protocol", STD 34, RFC 1058,
       Rutgers University, June 1988.

   [2] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information",
       RFC 1388, Xylogics, Inc., January 1993.

   [3] Malkin, G., and F. Baker, "RIP Version 2 MIB Extension", RFC
       1724, Xylogics, Inc., Cisco Systems, November 1994.

   [4] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 Protocol Analysis", RFC 1721,
       Xylogics, Inc., November 1994.

   [5] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement", RFC
       1722, Xylogics, Inc., November 1994.








Malkin                                                          [Page 8]
^L
RFC 1723                     RIP Version 2                 November 1994


Author's Address

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

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










































Malkin                                                          [Page 9]
^L