From rip-admin@ietf.org Mon Mar 15 11:05:26 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05839 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2ual-0004Li-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uZk-0004AY-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:04:24 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uYN-0003uE-00; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:02:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uYP-0008K1-Gv; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uXS-0008Ik-2k for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05712 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uXP-0003oa-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:01:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uWX-0003hq-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:01:06 -0500 Received: from io.iol.unh.edu ([132.177.123.82]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uVg-0003T2-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from oberon.iol.unh.edu (oberon.iol.unh.edu [132.177.118.52]) by io.iol.unh.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2FFtLUI028592 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:55:21 -0500 From: Joseph Scholefield To: rip@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079366365.6514.44.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:59:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact systems@iol.unh.edu for more information X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-100, required 5, USER_IN_WHITELIST -100.00) X-MailScanner-From: js@iol.unh.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [rip] Version Number Processing Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, We have encountered a number of scenarios which are not too clearly described in the RIP 2 Specification, RFC2453. We are concerned with how a RIP Router should handle the reception of RIP Version 3 packets (anything greater than 2). Section 5 states As a V1 Router: - Version 1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are to be ignored - Version >1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are not to be ignored "simply because an MBZ field contains a value other than zero." Does this hold true as a V2 Router? So, does a version 2 router process, or drop, a version 3 RIP packet? Should this packet be a Request, should a RIP Router then respond with a Version 3 Response? I have read through the RFC and have not come up with any clear answer to the expected behavior. If you could direct me to specific quotes in the RFC that will tell me what a router should do, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Scholefield _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 15 11:05:56 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05899 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uan-0008TC-VY for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2FG5Tuj032558 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uan-0008T3-Rr for rip-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05834 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2ual-0004Lc-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:05:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uZj-0004AR-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:04:24 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uYN-0003uE-00; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:02:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uYP-0008K1-Gv; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uXS-0008Ik-2k for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:02:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05712 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:01:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uXP-0003oa-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:01:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uWX-0003hq-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:01:06 -0500 Received: from io.iol.unh.edu ([132.177.123.82]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uVg-0003T2-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:00:12 -0500 Received: from oberon.iol.unh.edu (oberon.iol.unh.edu [132.177.118.52]) by io.iol.unh.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2FFtLUI028592 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:55:21 -0500 From: Joseph Scholefield To: rip@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079366365.6514.44.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:59:25 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact systems@iol.unh.edu for more information X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UNH-IOL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-100, required 5, USER_IN_WHITELIST -100.00) X-MailScanner-From: js@iol.unh.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [rip] Version Number Processing Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, We have encountered a number of scenarios which are not too clearly described in the RIP 2 Specification, RFC2453. We are concerned with how a RIP Router should handle the reception of RIP Version 3 packets (anything greater than 2). Section 5 states As a V1 Router: - Version 1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are to be ignored - Version >1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are not to be ignored "simply because an MBZ field contains a value other than zero." Does this hold true as a V2 Router? So, does a version 2 router process, or drop, a version 3 RIP packet? Should this packet be a Request, should a RIP Router then respond with a Version 3 Response? I have read through the RFC and have not come up with any clear answer to the expected behavior. If you could direct me to specific quotes in the RFC that will tell me what a router should do, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Scholefield _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From rip-admin@ietf.org Mon Mar 15 11:25:46 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07772 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uuR-0000AM-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2usX-0007TK-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:23:49 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2urL-0007D8-02; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:22:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B2ulz-00037i-KC; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:17:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2ulw-0001Lf-PV; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2ulq-0001LH-Md for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:16:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06841 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:16:52 -0500 (EST) From: gmalkin@toplayer.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2ulp-0006Ev-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:16:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uko-00062E-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:15:50 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([66.100.252.67] helo=tlnmail1.toplayer.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uji-0005sn-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:14:42 -0500 Received: by tlnmail1.toplayer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:14:07 -0500 Message-ID: To: js@iol.unh.edu, rip@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rip] Version Number Processing Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:13:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Joe, The reason the spec does not cover this case is that it depends on the difference between V3 and V2. If the V3 packet is completely backwards compatible with a V2 packet (i.e., the only difference is in a field unused by V2), then the V2 router could respond with a V2 packet. The V3 router should be able to handle a V2 response. Ideally, it would remember that there is a V2 router on that interface and use V2 on it thereafter. If the V3 packet is not backwards compatible, then the V2 router must drop the V3 packet. Unfortunately, since the V2 code is already out there, it doesn't know which scenario is the correct one, so its operation is implementation dependent. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Scholefield [mailto:js@iol.unh.edu] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:59 AM To: rip@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Version Number Processing Hello, We have encountered a number of scenarios which are not too clearly described in the RIP 2 Specification, RFC2453. We are concerned with how a RIP Router should handle the reception of RIP Version 3 packets (anything greater than 2). Section 5 states As a V1 Router: - Version 1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are to be ignored - Version >1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are not to be ignored "simply because an MBZ field contains a value other than zero." Does this hold true as a V2 Router? So, does a version 2 router process, or drop, a version 3 RIP packet? Should this packet be a Request, should a RIP Router then respond with a Version 3 Response? I have read through the RFC and have not come up with any clear answer to the expected behavior. If you could direct me to specific quotes in the RFC that will tell me what a router should do, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Scholefield _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Mar 15 11:26:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07880 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uuS-000245-IL for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2FGPmEf007937 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2uuR-00023w-S0 for rip-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA07765 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uuQ-0000AB-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:25:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2usW-0007TD-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:23:49 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2urL-0007D8-02; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:22:36 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B2ulz-00037i-KC; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:17:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2ulw-0001Lf-PV; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:17:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B2ulq-0001LH-Md for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:16:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06841 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:16:52 -0500 (EST) From: gmalkin@toplayer.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2ulp-0006Ev-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:16:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uko-00062E-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:15:50 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([66.100.252.67] helo=tlnmail1.toplayer.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B2uji-0005sn-00 for rip@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:14:42 -0500 Received: by tlnmail1.toplayer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:14:07 -0500 Message-ID: To: js@iol.unh.edu, rip@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rip] Version Number Processing Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:13:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Joe, The reason the spec does not cover this case is that it depends on the difference between V3 and V2. If the V3 packet is completely backwards compatible with a V2 packet (i.e., the only difference is in a field unused by V2), then the V2 router could respond with a V2 packet. The V3 router should be able to handle a V2 response. Ideally, it would remember that there is a V2 router on that interface and use V2 on it thereafter. If the V3 packet is not backwards compatible, then the V2 router must drop the V3 packet. Unfortunately, since the V2 code is already out there, it doesn't know which scenario is the correct one, so its operation is implementation dependent. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Scholefield [mailto:js@iol.unh.edu] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:59 AM To: rip@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Version Number Processing Hello, We have encountered a number of scenarios which are not too clearly described in the RIP 2 Specification, RFC2453. We are concerned with how a RIP Router should handle the reception of RIP Version 3 packets (anything greater than 2). Section 5 states As a V1 Router: - Version 1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are to be ignored - Version >1 packets with MBZ with non-zero fields are not to be ignored "simply because an MBZ field contains a value other than zero." Does this hold true as a V2 Router? So, does a version 2 router process, or drop, a version 3 RIP packet? Should this packet be a Request, should a RIP Router then respond with a Version 3 Response? I have read through the RFC and have not come up with any clear answer to the expected behavior. If you could direct me to specific quotes in the RFC that will tell me what a router should do, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Joe Scholefield _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From rip-admin@ietf.org Thu Mar 18 05:11:13 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00741 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uUc-0002mI-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:11:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uTm-0002fz-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:10:23 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uTG-0002Za-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:09:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B3uTI-0006n1-3E; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:09:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3uT1-0000Ef-Kk; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:09:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3uRh-00008u-AJ for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:08:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00583 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:08:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uRe-0002Qv-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:08:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uQe-0002Jp-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:09 -0500 Received: from mta1.huawei.com ([61.144.161.40] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uPd-00027N-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:06:17 -0500 Received: from KISHORE (huawei.com [172.17.1.60]) by mta1.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HUR00L6FNJDF4@mta1.huawei.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:54:50 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:35:45 +0530 From: Nanda kishore To: rip@ietf.org, ripng@ietf.org Reply-to: Nanda kishore Message-id: <001201c40cd0$954da0c0$6604120a@KISHORE> Organization: huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) --Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA)-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From rip-admin@ietf.org Thu Mar 18 10:35:47 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20307 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zYi-0006Yj-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zXZ-0006NT-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:34:40 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zW7-000687-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:33:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3zW8-00066U-OG; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:33:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3zVT-00063d-4X for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:32:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19842 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:32:16 -0500 (EST) From: gmalkin@toplayer.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zVK-0005z1-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:32:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zTd-0005i1-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:30:35 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([66.100.252.67] helo=tlnmail1.toplayer.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zS5-0005P6-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:57 -0500 Received: by tlnmail1.toplayer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: kishoren@huawei.com, rip@ietf.org, ripng@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0" Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination, whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination,
whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries.

Gary Malkin             Cheap, fast, good...
508-870-1300 x254                Pick two!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM
To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org
Subject: [rip] Specific request processing

Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 18 10:37:44 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20552 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3zZJ-0006Nj-KI for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:36:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2IFaDfm024512 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:36:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3zYq-0006Lx-Ek for rip-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20300 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zYh-0006YZ-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:35:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zXX-0006NC-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:34:37 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zW7-000687-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:33:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3zW8-00066U-OG; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:33:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3zVT-00063d-4X for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:32:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19842 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:32:16 -0500 (EST) From: gmalkin@toplayer.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zVK-0005z1-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:32:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zTd-0005i1-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:30:35 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([66.100.252.67] helo=tlnmail1.toplayer.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zS5-0005P6-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:57 -0500 Received: by tlnmail1.toplayer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:16 -0500 Message-ID: To: kishoren@huawei.com, rip@ietf.org, ripng@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:28:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0" Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination, whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination,
whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries.

Gary Malkin             Cheap, fast, good...
508-870-1300 x254                Pick two!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM
To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org
Subject: [rip] Specific request processing

Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C40CFD.A0B1E9D0-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From rip-admin@ietf.org Thu Mar 18 11:06:24 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21998 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B402M-0000Ts-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B401S-0000RO-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:31 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B400y-0000Pp-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B4010-00084o-Ef; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B400Y-00083Z-3v for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21937 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B400V-0000PP-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zzg-0000NY-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:03:41 -0500 Received: from mta0.huawei.com ([61.144.161.41] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zzE-0000Hl-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:03:13 -0500 Received: from KISHORE (huawei.com [172.17.1.62]) by mta0.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0HUS0038S4IC0C@mta0.huawei.com> for rip@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:01:26 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:33:57 +0530 From: Nanda kishore Subject: Re: [rip] Specific request processing To: gmalkin@toplayer.com, rip@ietf.org Reply-to: Nanda kishore Message-id: <000d01c40d02$9f5b6840$6604120a@KISHORE> Organization: huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT But the metric will be inconsistent. For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16 How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456 Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?. Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ----- Original Message ----- From: gmalkin@toplayer.com To: kishoren@huawei.com ; rip@ietf.org ; ripng@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination, whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) --Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
But the metric will be inconsistent.
For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16
How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456
Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?.
 
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing

You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination,
whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries.

Gary Malkin             Cheap, fast, good...
508-870-1300 x254                Pick two!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM
To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org
Subject: [rip] Specific request processing

Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ)-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 18 11:06:55 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22039 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B402P-00089W-32 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2IG6T3R031337 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B402O-00089M-Cr for rip-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21995 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B402L-0000Tl-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:06:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B401R-0000RG-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:30 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B400y-0000Pp-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B4010-00084o-Ef; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B400Y-00083Z-3v for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21937 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B400V-0000PP-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:04:31 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zzg-0000NY-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:03:41 -0500 Received: from mta0.huawei.com ([61.144.161.41] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3zzE-0000Hl-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:03:13 -0500 Received: from KISHORE (huawei.com [172.17.1.62]) by mta0.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with ESMTPA id <0HUS0038S4IC0C@mta0.huawei.com> for rip@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:01:26 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:33:57 +0530 From: Nanda kishore Subject: Re: [rip] Specific request processing To: gmalkin@toplayer.com, rip@ietf.org Reply-to: Nanda kishore Message-id: <000d01c40d02$9f5b6840$6604120a@KISHORE> Organization: huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT But the metric will be inconsistent. For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16 How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456 Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?. Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ----- Original Message ----- From: gmalkin@toplayer.com To: kishoren@huawei.com ; rip@ietf.org ; ripng@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination, whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) --Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
But the metric will be inconsistent.
For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16
How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456
Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?.
 
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing

You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination,
whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries.

Gary Malkin             Cheap, fast, good...
508-870-1300 x254                Pick two!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM
To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org
Subject: [rip] Specific request processing

Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_4pRDpjdd0hMbzLTmmRIPPQ)-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From rip-admin@ietf.org Thu Mar 18 12:33:28 2004 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26459 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Oc-0005v1-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Nm-0005tS-00 for rip-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:32:39 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41N9-0005rC-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B41NA-00084t-Tt; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B41Mj-00082t-Kn for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26414 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:29 -0500 (EST) From: gmalkin@toplayer.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Mi-0005ph-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Lv-0005mz-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:30:44 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([66.100.252.67] helo=tlnmail1.toplayer.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41LF-0005gZ-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:30:01 -0500 Received: by tlnmail1.toplayer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: kishoren@huawei.com, gmalkin@toplayer.com, rip@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00" Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" That is true, but there isn't anything that can be done about it. Unfortunately, OSPF allows larger metrics than RIP and there we're stuck with it. In a case like that, the only thing you can do is respond with "no such route." Any other response would be open to too much interpretation. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:04 AM To: gmalkin@toplayer.com; rip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rip] Specific request processing But the metric will be inconsistent. For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16 How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456 Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?. Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ----- Original Message ----- From: gmalkin@toplayer.com To: kishoren@huawei.com ; rip@ietf.org ; ripng@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination, whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM To: rip@ietf.org ; ripng@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
That is true, but there isn't anything that can be done about it. Unfortunately,
OSPF allows larger metrics than RIP and there we're stuck with it. In a case
like that, the only thing you can do is respond with "no such route." Any other
response would be open to too much interpretation.
 
Gary
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:04 AM
To: gmalkin@toplayer.com; rip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rip] Specific request processing

But the metric will be inconsistent.
For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16
How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456
Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?.
 
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing

You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination,
whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries.

Gary Malkin             Cheap, fast, good...
508-870-1300 x254                Pick two!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM
To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org
Subject: [rip] Specific request processing

Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Mar 18 12:33:59 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26483 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B41Oe-0008CM-9W for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2IHXWDQ031511 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B41Od-0008CA-Hm for rip-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26456 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Ob-0005uw-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:33:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Nl-0005tL-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:32:38 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41N9-0005rC-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B41NA-00084t-Tt; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:32:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B41Mj-00082t-Kn for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26414 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:29 -0500 (EST) From: gmalkin@toplayer.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Mi-0005ph-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:31:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B41Lv-0005mz-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:30:44 -0500 Received: from mail.toplayer.com ([66.100.252.67] helo=tlnmail1.toplayer.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B41LF-0005gZ-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:30:01 -0500 Received: by tlnmail1.toplayer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: kishoren@huawei.com, gmalkin@toplayer.com, rip@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00" Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" That is true, but there isn't anything that can be done about it. Unfortunately, OSPF allows larger metrics than RIP and there we're stuck with it. In a case like that, the only thing you can do is respond with "no such route." Any other response would be open to too much interpretation. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:04 AM To: gmalkin@toplayer.com; rip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rip] Specific request processing But the metric will be inconsistent. For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16 How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456 Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?. Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ----- Original Message ----- From: gmalkin@toplayer.com To: kishoren@huawei.com ; rip@ietf.org ; ripng@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination, whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries. Gary Malkin Cheap, fast, good... 508-870-1300 x254 Pick two! -----Original Message----- From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM To: rip@ietf.org ; ripng@ietf.org Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
That is true, but there isn't anything that can be done about it. Unfortunately,
OSPF allows larger metrics than RIP and there we're stuck with it. In a case
like that, the only thing you can do is respond with "no such route." Any other
response would be open to too much interpretation.
 
Gary
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:04 AM
To: gmalkin@toplayer.com; rip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rip] Specific request processing

But the metric will be inconsistent.
For ospf / BGP metric may be more than 16
How to respond send the metric in BGP say 123456
Wont' it be invalid in a rip response. ?.
 
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: RE: [rip] Specific request processing

You should respond with whichever route the router will use for that destination,
whether or not it is a RIP route. This is true for all queries.

Gary Malkin             Cheap, fast, good...
508-870-1300 x254                Pick two!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nanda kishore [mailto:kishoren@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:06 AM
To: rip@ietf.org; ripng@ietf.org
Subject: [rip] Specific request processing

Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C40D0E.8D6E0F00-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Mar 30 18:14:12 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26684 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B8RjS-0006ZK-QR for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:29:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2IABUsL001437 for rip-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:11:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3uUl-0000MO-Om for rip-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:11:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00736 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:11:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uUb-0002mC-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:11:13 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uTl-0002fs-00 for rip-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:10:22 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uTG-0002Za-00; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:09:50 -0500 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1B3uTI-0006n1-3E; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:09:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3uT1-0000Ef-Kk; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:09:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B3uRh-00008u-AJ for rip@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:08:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA00583 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:08:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uRe-0002Qv-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:08:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uQe-0002Jp-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:07:09 -0500 Received: from mta1.huawei.com ([61.144.161.40] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B3uPd-00027N-00 for rip@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:06:17 -0500 Received: from KISHORE (huawei.com [172.17.1.60]) by mta1.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.16 (built May 14 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HUR00L6FNJDF4@mta1.huawei.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:54:50 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:35:45 +0530 From: Nanda kishore To: rip@ietf.org, ripng@ietf.org Reply-to: Nanda kishore Message-id: <001201c40cd0$954da0c0$6604120a@KISHORE> Organization: huawei MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Subject: [rip] Specific request processing Sender: rip-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rip-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi, In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that we should respond with only RIP route. Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request for that destination Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance) Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ) Which metric should we respond with. Regards Nanda kishore ----------------------- Senior Software Engineer Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Leela Galleria, Bangalore, India. Ph. 25265596 (R) 25217152 Ext 662 (O) --Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Hi,
 
    In RIP, RIPng If we get a specific request for a particualr desination, RFC's say
that we should respond without doing split-horizon processing. Does that mean that
we should respond with only RIP route.
 
Say there is a BGP/OSPF route for desination 210.1.1.0/24 and we got a specific request
for that destination
 
    Case 1: There is a RIP route with cost 4 which is inactive (Administrative distance)
    Case 2: There is no RIP route to the destination (BGP/OSPF's route is there with cost XYZ)
 
Which metric should we respond with.
 
Regards
Nanda kishore
-----------------------
Senior Software Engineer
Huawei Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Leela Galleria,
Bangalore, India.
Ph. 25265596 (R)
      25217152 Ext 662 (O)
 
 
--Boundary_(ID_O08xc3PCiJaxCsTTve+EzA)-- _______________________________________________ rip mailing list rip@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip