Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-06 Thread Kent
The rip's limitation is if a route is more than 15 hop away, it is considered unreachable. I do not think the TTL is a problem, just like when ping a destination across the world, you do not worry about the TTL of your packets, normally. Kent --- Lance Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, are

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-05 Thread Nimesh Vakharia
> So, are you suggesting that the RIP update be passed through 16 router hops? I am > not the routing protocol expert of this group, but I know that you will only > update your neighboring router routers. Oh updates, are all broadcast if its a broadcast medium, and u specify nieghbor if

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-05 Thread Lance Simon
So, are you suggesting that the RIP update be passed through 16 router hops? I am not the routing protocol expert of this group, but I know that you will only update your neighboring router routers. This may not be a big deal, since rip updates are sent via a broadcast (v1) or multicast address (

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-05 Thread Nimesh Vakharia
If I remember this right, RIP scales upto 16 hops... after that you can ICMP host unreachables.. so max TTL would be 16.. Nimesh. On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Lance Simon wrote: > Yes, I was wrong about it not being in the IP header. The ttl is in the ip > header. RIP updates are transported over UDP

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-05 Thread woody
Doesn't RIP 'route by rumours' - ie: only exchange updates with its immediate neighbours. A TTL of 2 would acheive this as it will not be forwarded past the immediate neighbour (the TTL is decremented and if the next hop of a packet with a TTL of 1 is not directly connected to the router then the

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-05 Thread Lance Simon
Yes, I was wrong about it not being in the IP header. The ttl is in the ip header. RIP updates are transported over UDP port 520. Now, what do you think the ttl for a RIP update should be, Nimesh? And why? Nimesh Vakharia wrote: > It would be very interesting to see these traces. The switch

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-04 Thread Nimesh Vakharia
It would be very interesting to see these traces. The switch must be doing something very wierd. A UDP header consists of Source Port, Dest Port, Length and the checksum... TTL's are usually L3 and a max TTL 2 indicates somethings really screwed up. Nimesh. On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Lance Simon wro

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-04 Thread Lance Simon
Actually, if the switch is routing, it will decrement the hop or ttl value. And the ttl on a RIP update is in the UDP header. If you are not convinced I will send you the traces. And finally, as Travis stated, a RIP update should only have max ttl of 2. Lance Cormac Long wrote: > Not sure wha

RE: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-04 Thread Travis Gamble
amble -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cormac Long Sent: June 4, 2000 7:14 AM To: Lance Simon; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Very interesting RIP issue Not sure what the nature of the problem is here, but here are a couple of points to note: 1

Re: Very interesting RIP issue

2000-06-04 Thread Cormac Long
Not sure what the nature of the problem is here, but here are a couple of points to note: 1. The TTL field is in the IP header and not the UDP header. 2. The TTL is only decremented after the packet crosses a router hop ( a switch hop does NOT count). 3. The inital TTL=15, and it gets decrement