[quagga-users 11422] Re: ripv1 classless routing doubt??

Nick Hilliard nick at inex.ie
Mon Mar 15 14:41:44 GMT 2010


On 15/03/2010 13:21, Krishna Chaitanya wrote:
> By default our device applies the interface mask to an RIPv1 route but
> if in the routing table if we have the situation as you mentioned
> (16.254.140.0/24 <http://16.254.140.0/24>) then for some routes it is
> dropping and for others its transmitting.

I should have added that quagga refuses to redistribute three ipv4
networks: 0.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8 and 169.254.0.0/16 (or longer subnets of
those prefixes).  This check is performed in zebra_check_addr().

> If we change the behavior of quagga to be same as cisco, then our
> customers will be happy. Of course RIPv1 is obsolete in the industry but
> for small and simple deployments still some people use it :-)

Can suggest then that you put up a very obvious warning to say that RIPv1
is deprecated and is likely to cause serious connectivity problems?
Otherwise your customers may be misled into thinking that it will work as
expected.

Nick


More information about the Quagga-users mailing list