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
> 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
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 (
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi group!
I am a lurker at best here, but today I saw something that really
puzzled me. While I was looking at a trace file I noticed something
unusual about the ttl values for RIP updates on a PacketEngines switch.
This switch is connected to a Cat5000 and I had a sniffer in between the
two.
M
11 matches
Mail list logo
