home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1993
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (1993).iso
/
inet
/
internet-drafts
/
draft-ietf-ripv2-protocol-00.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-10-01
|
19KB
|
563 lines
Draft-ietf-ripv2-protocol-00.txt G. Malkin
Obsoletes RFC 1388 Xylogics, Inc.
Updates RFC 1058 October 1992
RIP Version 2
Carrying Additional Information
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.
A companion document will define the SNMP MIB objects for RIP-2 [3].
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet Drafts.
Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working
draft" or "work in progress."
Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet
Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other
Internet Draft.
It is intended that this document will be submitted to the IESG for
consideration as a standards document. Distribution of this document
is unlimited.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the IETF ripv2 Working Group for their help in
improving the RIP-2 protocol.
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 1]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
Table of Contents
1. Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Current RIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Route Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 Next Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5 Multicasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6 Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Compatibility Switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 Larger Infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4 Addressless Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendicies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 2]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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
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:
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 3]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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).
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) ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 4]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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 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.
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 5]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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.
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.
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.
3.5 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.
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 6]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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; 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
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 7]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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 Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 8]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
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.
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 9]
Internet Draft RIP Version 2 October 1992
References
[1] Hedrick, C., Routing Information Protocol, Request For Comments
(RFC) 1058, Rutgers University, June 1988.
[2] Malkin, G., RIP Version 2 - Carrying Additional Information,
Request for Comments (RFC) 1388, Xylogics, Inc., January 1993.
[3] Malkin, G., and F. Baker, RIP Version 2 MIB Extension, Request
For Comments (RFC) 1389, Xylogics, Inc., Advanced Computer
Communications, January 1993.
Author's Address
Gary Scott Malkin
Xylogics, Inc.
53 Third Avenue
Burlington, MA 01803
Phone: (617) 272-8140
EMail: gmalkin@Xylogics.COM
Malkin Expires: 1Mar94 [Page 10]