[quagga-users 11423] Re: ripv1 classless routing doubt??

Krishna Chaitanya chaitanya.mgit at gmail.com
Tue Mar 16 05:41:05 GMT 2010


Thanks Nick,that was very helpful.I will make sure we inform our customers
about RIPv1 problems.


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:

> 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 Of course RIPv1 is obsolete in the industry but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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-users/attachments/20100316/b0a4b095/attachment.html>


More information about the Quagga-users mailing list