RIPng vs. RIPv2 (Stange Differences) ?????

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Eric Gamess, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. Eric Gamess

    Eric Gamess Guest

    Hello,

    I am using RIPng (RIP Next Generation). I am comparing it with RIPv2
    (RIP for IPv4) and I found some differences.

    I did the following lab:


    10.0.0.2/30 2.2.2.2/24

    2001:db8:5:5::2/64 2001:db8:2:2::2/64

    E0 E1
    ----------------------------
    R1--------------------------------------------------------
    R2------------------------
    E0 E1
    2001:db8:1:1::1/64 2001:db8:5:5::1/64
    1.1.1.1/24 10.0.0.1/30


    I put a sniffer between R1 and R2.

    R1 is advertising over E1 (IPv6):
    Route=2001:db8:1:1::/64 Metric=1
    Route=2001:db8:5:5::/64 Metric=1

    R2 is advertising over E0 (IPv6):
    Route=2001:db8:2:2::/64 Metric=1
    Route=2001:db8:5:5::/64 Metric=1

    I am supprised to see that R1 advertise route 2001:db8:5:5::/64
    in the internal network (network between R1 and R2). So does R2 with
    the same route (2001:db8:5:5::/64) in the internal network.


    For IPv4, I have the following results:
    R1 is advertising over E1 (IPv4):
    Route=1.1.1.0/24 Metric=1

    R2 is advertising over E0 (IPv4):
    Route=2.2.2.0/24 Metric=1

    As you can see, 10.0.0.0/30 is not advertising by R1 and R2 in the
    internal network. So why IPv4 does not advertise 10.0.0.0/30 in the
    internet network, and IPv6 advertise 2001:db8:5:5::/64 in the internal
    network?????

    Also, for router R1 network 2.2.2.0/24 is 1 hop away.
    But for R1, network 2001:db8:2:2::/64 is 2 hops away.
    I think both networks (2.2.2.0/24 and 2001:db8:2:2::/64) should
    be 1 hop away from R1!!!!

    Can someone help?????

    Thank you very much.

    Eric.
    Eric Gamess, Nov 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Gamess

    Eric Gamess Guest

    Sorry, I did the picture of the laboratory again.
    Thank you.

    | 2001:db8:1:1::1/64
    | 1.1.1.1/24
    | E0
    Router (R1)
    | E1
    | 10.0.0.1/30
    | 2001:db8:5:5::1/64
    |
    |
    |
    | 2001:db8:5:5::2/64
    | 10.0.0.2/30
    | E0
    Router (R2)
    | E1
    | 2.2.2.2/24
    | 2001:db8:2:2::2/64
    Eric Gamess, Nov 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Gamess

    Merv Guest

    AFAIK the behaviours you are seeing are the expected ones.


    RIPng uses link-local addresses, so the neighbours are always on the
    link.
    So they will always be on the same local subnet (FE80::10).
    Notice that this is the route that RIPNG does not advertise.
    RIPNG will advertise any other IPv6 addresses configured on the common
    link between neighbours



    In IPv4, directly connected routes have a RIP metric of 0; when the
    route is advertised,
    the advertising router adds 1 to the metric and sends the route.
    In IPv6, the same thing happens on the sending router.


    However on the receiving IPv6 RIP router, in accordance with RFC2080

    "Once the entry has been validated, update the metric by adding the
    cost of the network on which the message arrived. If the result
    is
    greater than infinity, use infinity. That is,

    metric = MIN (metric + cost, infinity)"


    The cost on the receiving interface is 1 by default and thus you see a
    metric of 2 in the ipv6 routing table.
    In IPv6 this "cost" can be modified using the command

    ipv6 rip <process-name> metric-offset <1-16> with 1 being the
    default


    The same effect would be achieved in IPv4 RIP by configuring

    router rip
    version 2
    offset-list 0 in 1
    Merv, Nov 17, 2007
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. xlr8

    RipV2 & Subnets

    xlr8, Jun 4, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,067
    Hansang Bae
    Jun 8, 2005
  2. k

    Stange mp3 file association issue...

    k, Aug 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    519
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Aug 7, 2003
  3. Dom

    redist: bgp -> ripv2

    Dom, Jul 24, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    831
  4. Jimbo

    Stange File

    Jimbo, May 10, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    582
    thanatoid
    May 11, 2007
  5. Eric Gamess

    RIPng and passive-interface

    Eric Gamess, Dec 12, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,173
Loading...

Share This Page