Talk:Routing Information Protocol

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

I didn't add the mention of the ARPANET, merely corrected] the erroneous reference that was already there, from "RIP was first developed in 1969 as part of ARPANET" to "The algorithm used in RIP, the Bellman-Ford algorithm, was first deployed in 1969 as part of the ARPANET." Noel (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Could a list of entry level Products which support RIP be added, so others can learn by 'doing'?

<SSPecteR> I really didn't liked this phrase: "It runs above the network layer of the Internet protocol suite, using UDP port 520 to carry its data." Isn't it from the network layer? What does it mean as "above"? application layer? Heaven? Please, someone specify it. ♠ Saturday, 2006-06-10, 06:23 (UTC)

It is a layer management protocol for the network layer, and thus a network layer protocol even though it runs over UDP (Port 520).Hcberkowitz 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to disagree here, it's not implimented in the base stack, can be interchanged with any number of other protocols, and is dependant directly on the transport control layer, thus it's an application layer protocol. (In that it is implimented at that layer.)

Sorry, but this is not true architecturally either from the full OSI (i.e., beyond seven simple layers) or the IETF perspectives. If you are going to cite OSI layering, then please consider the Management Annex (ISO 7498/4) to the basic OSI Reference Model, and the OSI Routeing Framework. Additional ISO work on the user, control, and management planes, under the ATM architectural work, made very clear that there are parallel stacks, not a "base stack". Routing protocols are in a parallel management stack. OSI routing and management documents are quite explicit that it is the nature of the payload, not the means of encapsulation, that determines what protocol is being managed. As you point out, basic ISIS does not run over a network layer protocol, but its total purpose is a set of functions invisible to the end user, or what I assume you mean by "base stack."

Since RIP, in any event, is not used in any OSI stack, how it is characterized by a simplified version of OSI architecture is irrelevant. The authoritative reference is IETF, and the Routing Area of the IETF, with responsibility for all IP-related routing protocols, simply does not use the OSI terminology. I challenge you to find one standards-track RFC that puts a routing protocol into the application layer. SNMP is an application-layer management protocol that does affect routing, but it does not exchange information about routes (e.g., network layer reachability information).Howard C. Berkowitz 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It manages a lower layer, so it does have to reach back down, but all routing protocols have to do this and many are not listed as network layer ptotocols. (At least one, IS-IS, doesn't use IP for their own communications at all.)

206.192.18.14 13:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

First,

I dont see why one says that convergence time is bad in RIP As long as prefixes are not "withdrawn", RIP works just as well as say BGP. The metric /hops is a good discriminator to choose the correct path. the older versions of RIP had something similar to Origin identifier at a time, which was used to cut out loops —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.227.114.98 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

In real networks, prefixes are frequently withdrawn, as routers or links go down. One of the main reasons to have a routing protocol is to facilitate failover, and RIP, depending on timer settings, can take 90-180 seconds to declare a route down and reconverge. With timer tuning, modern OSPF implementations can reconverge sometimes in less than a second, and often in low seconds. Hcberkowitz 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

my router has these two options but the instruction manual is not that detailed. does anyone know what are the differences? it should be mentionned in the article too. Louis R14 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

They're probably RIPv2 over broadcast and RIPv2 over multicast. Use multicast if your network is fully RIPv2, broadcast if you still have RIPv1 routers. Jec 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

well, they can be identified even by the name. My Netgear JNDR3000 also have 2 options, I looked at them for a while and learned that the reason adding Rip_2M/2B is to show the difference between Rip_2M(ulticast) and Rip_2B(roadcast). Not so important for a router running inside a home network, I guess.--218.71.183.131 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

is it useful to deactivate RIP function in a single router network? Louis R14 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not always, if the hosts passively listen for RIP updates to learn the address of the default router. This is common with UNIX hosts, especially which run the routeD package in passive mode.Hcberkowitz 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

144.162.97.135 asks (via a question inserted into the article that I've just removed) whether RIP is dynamic or static. --Northernhenge (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) RIP is dynamic--[[User talk:R.srinivaas ]] (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I challenge the claim that "mostly RIP networks are flat". Routing protocols have nothing to do with flat networks. Generally, a flat network has no routing, which makes routing protocols unnecessary as well. RIP is a method by which routers, which serve to segment networks communicate their segments to each-other. I'd argue that by very definition routing protocols don't exist on a flat network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doll-haus (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

can i introduce a new section in this article ?

There are several disadvantages of using RIP,

1) Hop count can not exceed 15, in case if it exceeds it will be considered invalid 2) Mostly RIP networks are flat , there are no concepts of areas or boundaries in networks 3) Variable Length Subnet Masks is not supported by RIP 1, which is considered as a flaw 4) RIP has slow convergence or count to infinity problem 5) RIP does not have mechanism to detect Routing Loops

--[[User talk:R.srinivaas ]] (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Near the end of the 'technical details' there is a sentence which doesn't sound right, but I'm not sure how to fix it: 'RIP is a UDP-base breaks the often defended encapsulation hierarchy of OSI.' Maybe it should be 'RIP is a UDP-based protocol and breaks ...'?

78.108.141.145 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody clarify which RFC specifies RIP MTI

This is nothing the one type of feature which is used to prevent loop back or propogate to wested network. and to speedup the convergence

-- unsigned

http://uni-koblenz.de/~vnuml/docs/rip/Diplomarbeit_TKoch.pdf (german, 2005).

there should be another paper (more like a spec, the above concentrates a bit on performance research): "Andreas J. Schmid. RIP-MTI: Minimum-effort loop-free distance vector routing algorithm. Diplomarbeit, Universität Koblenz-Landau, 1999." but i wasn't able to find this online.

according to the 2005 paper, there should be a rip-mti implementation for quagga. but i wasn't able to find that either. iirc the paper should be sufficient to easily produce a patch, so there is a chance to easily build a working implementation.

i think the title should be "where is rip mti"? i didn't find it in the (english, i.e. this) article - and that's a shame if you ask me...

it should be noted that rip-mti isn't a different protocol. it is used with ripv2, and "just" changes how the routing daemon behaves.

--212.18.18.20 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is it within the realm of this discussion to modify the RIP Techical details to use the latest up to date information for RIPv2 as the basis for information, and not the original protocol values?

Stating that RIP uses a hop count of 15 in the summary, while correct for RIPv1, it is not correct for today's use. The majority of RIP users will be using the latest version in the devices they purchase. (ripv2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.146.43.6 (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wow I really don't think so. While we might be using Rip_v2 or some more advanced routing protocols(like IS-IS or OSPF), a brief intro for those obsolete protocols are still required. Also, some devices, though we might be able to announce Rip_v1 being "deprecated", it's still being used in some networks.--218.71.183.131 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnuniq undid an edit we added to the External Links section. I'm not sure I understand the rationale. I read the WP:EL content and it seemed the external link we submitted met the goal of "...or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy...".

The link we attempted to add is a detailed HOWTO configure RIP. It provides step-by-step instructions on how to configure RIP in both Linux and Windows 2012/2016. The HOWTO describes building a RIP installation using Quagga which is the definitive open-source implementation of RIP.

The article also included explanations of Route Selection, Route Types and Administrative Distance. All three of which are fundamental to understanding routing protocols on all modern RIP installations but is rarely if ever documented. Most documentation assumes the reader is already familiar with these topics which leaves a gap for learners to grasp.

The article we linked to is http://carroll.net/blog/dynamic-routing-with-redhat/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamercee (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now, I know there are only so many ways to word it, but the first sentence

 The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is a distance-vector routing protocol, which employs the hop count as a routing metric.

I suspiciously similar to the first sentence on Cisco's page

 The Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is a distance-vector protocol that uses hop count as its metric.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.41.45 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply 

These "Hold Down" and "Flush Timer" etc, are from Cisco, which has been taken from a link [1] , and "in that link" that person has made notes to pass in CCNA,CCNP (cisco exams). There are different timers in Actual Standard. (Such as "timeout" and "garbage-collection time") I think those timeouts should be included. Should we include those timers ? Shrivastava Dinesh (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

whereas Juniper implementation has different definitions [2] for hold-down ( However, the expired route is retained in the routing table for a specified period so that neighbors can be notified that the route has been dropped. This time period is set by configuring the hold-down timer. Upon expiration of the hold-down timer, the route is removed from the routing table.) Shrivastava Dinesh (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFC2453 states on page 13, that a network direct connected to a router has the metric 1 in that router's routing table:

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2453#page-13

In this article it says:

"The hop count 0 denotes a network that is directly connected to the router"

can anybody explain those differences?

Dannori (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suggest to remove the citation request at item two of the list since the stated fact can be gleaned from section 4 of RFC 2080 (detailed in section 3.4 of RFC 2081), which is referenced at the top of the paragraph. 2A00:1E:8683:1BFC:DC68:C993:7DCF:C051 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX) article talks about that protocol using RIP for routing info, and links to this article. But this article almost entirely talks about the implementation of RIP on IP (only the "Development of distance-vector routing" says "early routing protocols, such as Novell's IPX RIP").

Is IPX's RIP the same protocol as that used on IP (that is, is RIP completely agnostic to its underlying layer) or is it at best a similar protocol with the same name? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply