Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is a distance-vector routing protocol that uses hop count as its metric to determine the best path to a destination network. RIP is a simple and easy-to-implement protocol, which makes it a good choice for small and medium-sized networks. With their neighbours, RIP routers routinely communicate routing data. Both the network addresses of the routers’ surrounding networks and the number of hops between each network are included in this data. A router’s hop count is a gauge of how far away a destination network is from it. If there is only one hop between the router and the destination network, then means there are no intermediate hops. For example, a hop count of 2 indicates that the router is two hops distant from the destination network.
Introduction to RIP
In order to find the best route to a destination network, the Routing Information Protocol (RIP), a distance-vector routing protocol, employs hop count as its measure. RIP is a suitable protocol for small and medium-sized networks since it is straightforward and simple to implement.
Routing data is periodically exchanged between RIP routers and their neighbours. Along with the hop count to each network, this data also includes the network addresses of the routers’ neighbours. A router’s hop count serves as a gauge for the separation between it and the destination network. The router is directly connected to the destination network when the hop count is 1. The router is one hop from the destination network if the hop count is 2, and so on.
Work of RIP?
With their neighbours, RIP routers routinely communicate routing data. Both the network addresses of the routers’ surrounding networks and the number of hops between each network are included in this data. A router’s hop count is a gauge of how far away a destination network is from it. If there is only one hop between the router and the destination network, then means there are no intermediate hops. For example, a hop count of 2 indicates that the router is two hops distant from the destination network.
To guarantee that routing information is correct and current, RIP employs a number of techniques. Among these mechanisms are:
- Triggered updates: When RIP routers’ routing tables change, they issue triggered updates. This makes certain that other routers are promptly informed of modifications to the network topology.
- Split horizon: When a RIP router learns a route from an interface, it does not advertise that route back to that interface. By doing this, routing loops are reduced.
- Holddown timers: RIP routers employ holddown timers to stop routing loops from developing. A router will put a route in a holddown state if it receives a route with a hop count higher than the hop count it already possesses for that route. This indicates that until the holddown timer ends, the router won’t broadcast the route to its neighbours.
The History of RIP
Year |
Event |
|---|---|
| 1982 | RIPv1 is first released. |
| 1988 | RIPv2 is released. |
| 1993 | RIPv2 becomes the default routing protocol for IP networks. |
| 1997 | RIPv3 is released. |
| 2000 | RIPv2 is deprecated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). |
| 2003 | RIPv3 becomes the default routing protocol for IP networks. |
| Present | RIPv1 and RIPv2 are still in use, but they are not recommended for new networks. |
The different versions of RIP
RIP comes in three different iterations: RIPv1, RIPv2, and RIPv3:
- RIPv1: It is the first iteration of RIP. To choose the best route to a destination network, it employs hop count as its statistic. RIPv1 lacks route summarization support and is not very scalable.
- RIPv2: The most recent iteration of RIP. Subnetting, authentication, and a few other features are now supported. Although RIPv2 is more scalable than RIPv1, it still lacks a lot of security.
- RIPv3: The most recent RIP iteration is RIPv3. It includes support for IPv6 in addition to supporting all of the RIPv2 functionalities. Compared to RIPv1 and RIPv2, RIPv3 is more robust and scalable.
Here is a table summarizing the differences between the three versions of RIP:
Feature |
RIPv1 |
RIPv2 |
RIPv3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | Hop count | Hop count | Hop count, bandwidth, or others |
| Support for subnetting | No | Yes | Yes |
| Support for authentication | No | Yes | Yes |
| Support for IPv6 | No | No | Yes |
| Scalability | Not scalable | More scalable | More scalable |
| Security | Not secure | More secure | More secure |
The Benefits of RIP
- Simple and easy to implement: RIP is a straightforward protocol that is simple to comprehend and configure. It is also easy to use. It is a suitable option for small and medium-sized networks because of this.
- Effective in terms of bandwidth usage: RIP exchanges routing information using a little amount of bandwidth. It is an excellent option for networks with constrained bandwidth because of this.
- Widely supported: The majority of routers support RIP. This makes deployment and management simple.
- Loop-free: The protocol RIP is loop-free. This means that it is immune to routing loops, which can interfere with other routing protocols and result in issues.
- Reliable: RIP is a trustworthy protocol. To guarantee that routing information is reliable and current, it employs a number of approaches.
- Cost-effective: The RIP protocol is a good choice. It can be implemented without the need for any additional hardware or software.
In general, RIP is a straightforward, effective, and widely accepted routing protocol. For small and medium-sized networks that do not require the scalability or security of other routing protocols, it is a good option.
The limitations of RIP
- Not scalable: RIP is not very scalable. As a network grows, the routing table can become too large and the protocol can become inefficient.
- Not very secure: RIP does not support authentication, which makes it vulnerable to attacks.
- Does not support route summarization: RIP does not support route summarization. This can lead to routing loops and other problems in large networks.
- Uses hop count as its metric: Hop count is a simple metric that does not take into account factors such as bandwidth or latency. This can lead to suboptimal routing decisions.
- Updates are sent every 30 seconds: RIP updates are sent every 30 seconds. This can be too frequent for large networks, as it can generate a lot of network traffic.
Overall, RIP is a simple and easy-to-use routing protocol. However, it has some limitations that make it a less desirable choice for large or complex networks. Other routing protocols, such as OSPF or BGP, are more scalable and secure.
RIP Alternatives
There are many RIP alternatives available, some of the most popular include:
- OSPF (Open Shortest Path First: In comparison to RIP, OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) is a more scalable and secure routing technology. It can use a range of metrics to find the optimum route to a destination network and enables route summarization and authentication.
- BGP (Border Gateway Protocol): BGP is the Internet’s most popular routing protocol. It supports a wide range of network topologies and is very scalable and secure.
- EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol): EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol) is an OSPF-like Cisco-exclusive routing protocol. It is adaptable to different network topologies, secure, and scalable.
- IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System): An OSPF-like routing protocol is called IS-IS. It is adaptable to different network topologies, secure, and scalable.
The ideal RIP replacement for a certain network will depend on the needs of that network. However, good alternatives that provide more scalability and security than RIP include OSPF, BGP, EIGRP, and IS-IS.
The pros and cons of a few RIP variants are outlined in the following table:
Routing Protocol |
Pros |
Cons |
|---|---|---|
| OSPF | Scalable, secure, supports route summarization and authentication | More complex to configure than RIP |
| BGP | Very scalable, secure, supports a wide variety of network topologies | Complex to configure and manage |
| EIGRP | Scalable, secure, similar to OSPF | Not as widely supported as OSPF or BGP |
| IS-IS | Scalable, secure, similar to OSPF | Not as widely supported as OSPF or BGP |
