The real issue here is the particular vendor's implementation of RIP v1... If I Was to implement RIP v1 , I would certainly allow it to accept routes from RIP v 2 speakers, this is for robustness and to guard against misconfiguration bringing the entire network down.
N --- Chuck wrote: > without having had the chance to verify this for myself, I can offer > that > someone who occasionally lurks on this list once told me about a good > RIP > lab he designed, in which this issue is covered. His purpose in > designing > this particular lab was to demonstrate exactly what you are > reporting, and > to show how you can get screwed as a result. > > I've been meaning to look at this for some time now. Don't know if > I'll have > a chance in the near future, but if I do, I will certainly report the > result. > > Chuck > > > > ""Leo Song"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hi, there. > > > > In case a RIP v1 speaking router (Send v1 and Receive v1 & > v2)receives > > RIP v2 updates, how does it process those unused fields within v1, > say > > subnet mask. According to Jeff Volume I, it would ignore them but > my RIP > > v1 router does show up the network address as well as subnet mask, > > please advise. > > > > Best Regards. > > Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== Nnanna Obuba CCIE # 6586 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48109&t=48072 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
