Troubleshooting IP Routing Protocols
Authors: Shamim F. Liu J. Martey A.
Published year: 2002
Pages: 30-31/260
Buy this book on amazon.com >>
 < Free Open Study > 

Why RIP Doesn't Support Discontiguous Networks

A discontiguous network is comprised of a major network separated by another major network. In Figure 2-7, network 131.108.0.0 is separated by a subnet of network 137.99.0.0; here, 131.108.0.0 is a discontiguous network.

Figure 2-7. An Example of a Discontiguous Network

RIP is a classful protocol. Whenever RIP advertises a network across a different major network boundary, RIP summarizes the advertised network at the major network boundary. In Figure 2-7, when Router 1 sends an update containing 131.108.5.0 to Router 2 across 137.99.88.0, it converts 131.108.5.0/24 into 131.108.0.0/16. This process is called autosummarization.

Router 1 takes the following steps before sending an update to Router 2:

  1. Is 131.108.5.0/24 part of the same major network as 137.99.88.0/24, which is the subnet assigned to the interface that's sourcing the update?

  2. No. Router 1 summarizes 131.108.5.0/24 and advertises the route 131.108.0.0/16.

The debug ip rip command output on Router 1 shows the update sent by Router 1, as demonstrated in Example 2-4.

Example 2-4 debug ip rip Command Output Reveals RIP Update Information Sent by Router 1 in Figure 2-7
Router1#

debug ip rip

RIP: sending v1 update to 255.255.255.255 via Serial0 (137.99.88.2)

     network 131.108.0.0, metric 1

Router 2 goes through the following steps before accepting the update from Router 1:

  1. Is the major network received (131.108.0.0) the same as the major network of 137.99.88.0/24, which is the subnet assigned to the interface that received the update?

  2. No. Do any subnets of this major network already exist in the routing table known from interfaces other than that which received the update?

  3. Yes. Router 2 ignores the update.

Again, debug ip rip command output on Router 2 shows the update received by Router 2, as demonstrated in Example 2-5.

Example 2-5 debug ip rip Command Output Reveals RIP Update Information Received by Router 2 in Figure 2-7
Router2#

debug ip rip

RIP: received v1 update from 137.99.88.1 on Serial0

     131.108.0.0 in 1 hops

The routing table of Router 2, as demonstrated in the show ip route command output in Example 2-6, shows that the update was ignored. The only entry for any subnetwork or network on 131.108.0.0 is the one directly connected to Ethernet0.

Example 2-6 show ip route Command Output Reveals That the Routing Table for Router 2 in Figure 2-7 Does Not Reflect the Advertised Route Sent by Router 1
137.99.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets

    C       137.99.88.0 is directly connected, Serial0

         131.108.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3 subnets

    C       131.108.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0

To avoid having updates ignored, configure a static route on both routers that points toward the specific subnets. For example, on Router 1, configure the following:

Router1(config)#

ip route 131.108.2.0 255.255.255.0 137.99.88.1

On Router 2, configure the following:

Router2(config)#

ip route 131.108.5.0 255.255.255.0 137.99.88.2

 < Free Open Study > 
 < Free Open Study > 

Why RIP Doesn't Support Variable-Length Subnet Masking

The capability to specify a different subnet mask for the same network number is called variable-length subnet masking (VLSM). RIP and IGRP are classful protocols and are incapable of carrying subnet mask information in their updates. Before RIP or IGRP sends an update, it performs a check against the subnet mask of the network that is about to be advertised, with the subnet mask of the interface sourcing the update. If the two subnet masks don't match, the update gets dropped.

The following example demonstrates this concept. In Figure 2-8, Router 1 has three subnets with two different masks (/24 and /30).

Figure 2-8. An Example of a VLSM Network

Router 1 goes through the following steps before sending an update to Router 2:

  1. Router 1 checks to see if 131.108.5.0/24 is part of the same major network as 131.108.6.0/30, which is the network assigned to the interface that is sourcing the update.

  2. It is part of the same major network, so Router 1 determines whether 131.108.5.0/24 has the same subnet mask as 131.108.6.0/30.

  3. Because the subnet masks are not the same, Router 1 drops the network and doesn't advertise the route.

  4. Router 1 now determines whether 131.108.7.0/30 is part of the same major network as 131.108.6.0/30, which is the network assigned to the interface that is sourcing the update.

  5. It is part of the same major network, so Router 1 next determines whether 131.108.7.0/30 has the same subnet mask as 131.108.6.0/30.

  6. Because the two subnet masks are the same, Router 1 advertises the network.

The preceding procedure determined that Router 1 includes only 131.108.7.0 in its update that is sent to Router 2. The debug ip rip command in Example 2-7 actually shows the update sent by Router 1.

Example 2-7 debug ip rip Command Output Reveals RIP Update Information Sent by Router 1 to Router 2, as Illustrated in Figure 2-8
RIP: sending v1 update to 255.255.255.255 via Serial0 (131.108.6.2)

            subnet 131.108.7.0, metric 1

Notice in the output in Example 2-7 that the only subnet included in the update is 131.108.7.0. The subnet 131.108.5.0 is not included because it has a different subnet mask.

This results in the following entry in Router 2's routing table displayed by the show ip route command (see Example 2-8).

Example 2-8 show ip route Command Output Reveals That the Subnet 131.108.5.0/25 Is Missing from Router 2's Routing Table
Router2#

show ip route

131.108.0.0/30 is subnetted, 3 subnets

     R       131.108.7.0 [120/1] via 131.108.2.2, 00:00:08, Serial0

     C       131.108.6.0 is directly connected, Serial0

     C       131.108.2.0 is directly connected, Ethernet0

To avoid eliminating subnets from routing updates, either use the same subnet mask over the entire RIP network or use static routes for networks with different subnet masks.

 < Free Open Study > 
Troubleshooting IP Routing Protocols
Authors: Shamim F. Liu J. Martey A.
Published year: 2002
Pages: 30-31/260
Buy this book on amazon.com >>

Similar books on Amazon