rfc2453.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

Network Working Group                                          G. Malkin
Request for Comments: 2453                                  Bay Networks
Obsoletes: 1723, 1388                                      November 1998
STD: 56
Category: Standards Track


                             RIP Version 2

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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document specifies an extension of the Routing Information
   Protocol (RIP), as defined in [1], to expand the amount of useful
   information carried in RIP messages and to add a measure of security.

   A companion document will define the SNMP MIB objects for RIP-2 [2].
   An additional document will define cryptographic security
   improvements for RIP-2 [3].

Acknowledgements

   I would like to thank the IETF RIP Working Group for their help in
   improving the RIP-2 protocol. Much of the text for the background
   discussions about distance vector protocols and some of the
   descriptions of the operation of RIP were taken from "Routing
   Information Protocol" by C. Hedrick [1]. Some of the final editing on
   the document was done by Scott Bradner.












Malkin                      Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 2453                     RIP Version 2                 November 1998


Table of Contents

   1.  Justification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Current RIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Basic Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.1   Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.2   Limitations of the Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.3.  Organization of this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.4   Distance Vector Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.4.1    Dealing with changes in topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.4.2    Preventing instability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   3.4.3    Split horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   3.4.4    Triggered updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   3.5   Protocol Specification   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   3.6   Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   3.7   Addressing Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   3.8   Timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   3.9   Input Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   3.9.1    Request Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   3.9.2    Response Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   3.10  Output Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   3.10.1   Triggered Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   3.10.2   Generating Response Messages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   4.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   4.1   Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   4.2   Route Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   4.3   Subnet Mask  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   4.4   Next Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   4.5   Multicasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   4.6   Queries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   5.  Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   5.1   Compatibility Switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   5.2   Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   5.3   Larger Infinity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   5.4   Addressless Links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   6.  Interaction between version 1 and version 2  . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39










Malkin                      Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 2453                     RIP Version 2                 November 1998


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-1 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-1 protocol does not consider autonomous systems and
   IGP/EGP interactions, subnetting [11], and authentication since
   implementations of these postdate RIP-1.  The lack of subnet masks is
   a particularly serious problem for routers since they need a subnet
   mask to know how to determine a route.  If a RIP-1 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-1 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.  Basic Protocol

3.1 Introduction

   RIP is a routing protocol 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.




Malkin                      Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 2453                     RIP Version 2                 November 1998


   In an international network, such as the Internet, it is very
   unlikely that a single routing protocol will used for the entire
   network.  Rather, the network will be organized as a collection of
   Autonomous Systems (AS), each of which will, in general, be
   administered by a single entity.  Each AS will have its own routing
   technology, which may differ among AS's.  The routing protocol used
   within an AS is referred to as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).  A
   separate protocol, called an Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP), is used
   to transfer routing information among the AS's.  RIP was designed to
   work as an IGP in moderate-size AS's.  It is not intended for use in
   more complex environments.  For information on the context into which
   RIP-1 is expected to fit, see Braden and Postel [6].

   RIP uses one of a class of routing algorithms known as Distance
   Vector algorithms.  The earliest description of this class of
   algorithms known to the author is in Ford and Fulkerson [8].  Because
   of this, they are sometimes known as Ford-Fulkerson algorithms.  The
   term Bellman-Ford is also used, and derives from the fact that the
   formulation is based on Bellman's equation [4].  The presentation in
   this document is closely based on [5].  This document contains a
   protocol specification.  For an introduction to the mathematics of
   routing algorithms, see [1].  The basic algorithms used by 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 [7] 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 [9].  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 IPv4 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 special purpose
   gateways known as routers.  The networks may be either point-to-point
   links or more complex networks such as Ethernet or token ring.  Hosts
   and routers are presented with IP datagrams addressed to some host.
   Routing is the method by which the host or router 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 router.  However, the
   interesting case is when the destination is not directly reachable.





Malkin                      Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 2453                     RIP Version 2                 November 1998


   In this case, the host or router attempts to send the datagram to a
   router that is nearer the destination.  The goal of a routing
   protocol is very simple: It is to supply the information that is
   needed to do routing.

3.2 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 networks
   of moderate size.  In addition, the following specific limitations
   are be mentioned:

   - The protocol is limited to networks whose longest path (the
     network's diameter) is 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