IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rip] Specific request processing

Nanda kishore <kishoren@huawei.com> Thu, 18 March 2004 10:11 UTC

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 <rip-archive@ietf.org>; 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 <rip@ietf.org>; 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 <kishoren@huawei.com>
To: rip@ietf.org, ripng@ietf.org
Reply-to: Nanda kishore <kishoren@huawei.com>
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: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip>, <mailto:rip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Routing Information Protocol Working Group <rip.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rip>, <mailto:rip-request@ietf.org?subject=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

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)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email