RIPv2 characteristics: Which statement is accurate about Routing Information Protocol version 2 (RIPv2) when compared with RIPv1?

Introduction / Context:
RIPv2 improves upon RIPv1 primarily by adding classless routing (subnet masks in updates), multicast announcements, authentication, and route tags. However, many core operational aspects—including hop-count metric and default timers—remain unchanged. Recognizing what changed and what did not is a common exam focus.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Both versions use a maximum hop count of 15 and consider 16 as infinity.
• The convergence behavior is similar; both are distance-vector with periodic updates.
• Administrative distance in Cisco IOS defaults to 120 for both RIPv1 and RIPv2.

Concept / Approach:

RIPv2 retains RIPv1’s update, invalid, holddown, and flush timers (for example, default 30/180/180/240 seconds). The protocol enhancements focus on capability (VLSM, CIDR, multicast 224.0.0.9, authentication), not on changing the fundamental timer model or hop-count metric.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:

Use show ip protocols on a RIPv2 router to see timers; compare with RIPv1 reference—values match by default unless tuned.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Lower administrative distance: incorrect; both are 120.

Faster convergence: generally not; both share distance-vector periodic update behavior.

Harder to configure: RIPv2 configuration is similar and often simpler due to classless support and multicast.

Common Pitfalls:

Confusing RIPv2 improvements (VLSM/CIDR, multicast) with performance changes; assuming AD differences where none exist; overlooking authentication support in RIPv2 as a security enhancement.

Final Answer:

It has the same timers as RIPv1.