19.06.2012, 13:36, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <[email protected]>:
>>> Denis, why is this not used also by the RIP code? This would make it
>>> possible to use Linux-style unnumbered interfaces with RIP, and would
>>> make RIP behave the same as RIPng.
>> Well, there may be multiple places where RIP nexthops are matched
>> against connected prefixes. Perhaps, it's better to convert these
>> checks conditional rather than drop them, because coupling an
>> open-minded RIP router with a traditional one will likely create
>> one-way routes.
>
> Could you please clarify? I don't think that third-party announcements
> are allowed in RIP.
Two traditional RIP routers, one with interface 10.0.0.254/24 and another with
interface 192.168.0.254/24, would either ignore each other's messages or fail
installing the received routes, because the nexthop isn't on the connected
network. But with only one of these routers using onlink nexthops it would
succeed installing the received routes, but the other still would not, which
may cause a routing problem.
Onlink nexthops fall out of the RIP specification space somewhere, it seems to
me.
--
Denis Ovsienko
_______________________________________________
Babel-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
