Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/283015133
Performance analysis and redistribution among RIPv2, EIGRP & OSPF Routing
Protocol
CITATIONS READS
10 1,711
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Future Energy from Space Solar Power Satellite(SSPS) System View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Golap Kanti Dey on 27 November 2015.
C. Network Throughput
Fig. 2. Metric value for the RIPv2 protocol In small and condensed networks RIPv2 has better
performance than others. For medium-sized and scattered
To exchange the data from router R1 to R3 in the figure-2, networks OSPF and EIGRP [8] show excellent execution.
there are two paths path A and path B. In the path A hop count Overall in both small and relatively large networks EIGRP is
is one and for path B hop count is zero. So path B is best path more stable and balanced.
between R1 and R2.
Traffic throughput of a network is regulated by the routing
2) EIGRP: Bandwidth, delay, reliability, and load protocol in activities, and the hardware of routers, which is a
EIGRP uses the following values in its composite metric to key point for many network administrators. EIGRP utilizes the
calculate the preferred path to a network: Bandwidth, Delay, limited network bandwidth better than the OSPF. Based on the
Reliability, Load. Best path is chosen by the route with the estimation of protocols performance [9], it can be said that
smallest composite metric value calculated from these EIGRP could function both as a distance vector and link state
multiple parameters. By default, only bandwidth and delay are protocol. In comparison to OSPF through the intelligent use of
used. The EIGRP routing[6] update takes the hop count into metrics within the DUAL algorithm EIGRP performed better
account though EIGRP does not include hop count as a CPU utilization and bandwidth control. However the
component of composite metrics. The total delay and the throughput of the protocols is comparable with simulation
minimum bandwidth metrics can be achieved from values results [10] from finding OSPF providing greater network
which are put together on interfaces and the formula used to throughput than EIGRP, these results may differ due to the
compute the metric is followed by: different network topology used in testing.
Complete Composite Formula EIGRP have 5 composite to D. Preventing Routing Loops
calculate: K1 = Bandwidth, K2 = Load, K3 = Delay, K4 =
Reliability, K5 = MTU(Maximum Transmission Unit) Routing loops, which may be a short-lived, can be
extremely harmful for the performance of a network. Hold-
The weighting is as follows: K1=K3=1 and K2=K4=K5=0, down timers and split horizon are used in RIPv2 to prevent
Then substitutes all K parameters into the equation as follows: routing loops. The key way that EIGRP check routing loops
Metric = 256*[K1*bandwidth + (K2*bandwidth) / (256 - by using DUAL algorithm.
load) + K3*delay] * [K5 / (K4 + reliability)] On the other hand OSPF doesn't have any special feature to
Default Metric Calculation: Metric= 256*(BW + Delay). avoid loops but its architecture is modeled in the way that it
occupies instinctive loop prevention mechanism.
E. Authentication F. When to use
The possibility of accepting invalid routing updates is a 1) RIPv2
security concern of any routing protocol. An attacker could be Routing Information Protocol version 2 supports subnet mask
the source of this invalid traffic malevolently trying to disturb and reduces broadcast load. It is validated for updates as well
the network or attempting to get packets by misleading the as used for multivendor environment.
router into sending its updates to the wrong destination. A 2) EIGRP
misconfigured router could be another source of invalid Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol is used in very
updates. Or may be a host is attached to the network and large and complex networks as well as for fast convergence.It
unknown to its user - the host is running the routing protocol supports VLSM, multiprotocol.
of the local network. It is necessary to authenticate routing 3) OSPF
information transmitted between routers. To authenticate Open Shortest Path First protocol is preferred for large
routing information, RIPv2, EIGRP, OSPF can be configured. hierarchical networks, fast convergence,complex networks,
This practice provide routers will only accept routing Multivendor and VLSM.
information from other routers that have been configured with
the right password or authentication information.
In our simulated work we have used total eight routers common for a number of reasons, such as company mergers,
where router 0, router 3, router 6, router 7 were directly multiple departments managed by different network
connected with a switch. administrators and multi−vendor environments though running
a single routing protocol throughout your entire IP
The network A consists of router 0, router 1, router 2 with internetwork is desirable. Running multiple routing protocols
network address 192.168.1.0 performing EIGRP routing is often part of a network design. Redistribution is required for
protocol. Network B and Network C containing network
the environment of having multiple protocols.Through the
address 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0 respectively performing router redistribution [12], routes from one routing protocol
RIPv2 routing protocol where Network D consists of router will be revealed into another routing protocol. Received
3,router 4,router 5 containing network address192.168.4.0 redistributed routes are marked as external in the routing
respectively performing OSPF routing protocol . Within each protocol. Logically-originated routes are usually more
individual network every end user can communicate with one preferred than external routes.
another. But end users of two different networks can not
transmit data among them. As for example- PC4 and PC6 of A. Redistributing into RIP
network A can ping each other but PC4 of network A cannot Following command shows how a RIP router 6 in figure-3
ping PC12 of network D. Now for successful communication redistributing EIGRP and OSPF.
between end users of different network s, running different
networking protocols, route redistribution is used among router rip
router 0, router 3, router 6, and router 7. network 192.168.2.0
redistribute eigrp 1
IV. REDISTRIBUTION
redistribute ospf 1
The adaptation of a routing protocol to announce routes default−metric 1
that are accomplished by some other means, for instance by We are using same of the above commands for
another routing protocol, static routes, or directly connected redistributing EIGRP and OSPF into RIP router 7 except
routes, is called redistribution[11]. Multi−protocol routing is changing the network address 192.168.3.0. The RIP metric is
composed of hop count, and the maximum valid metric for V.CONCLUSION
RIPv2 is 15. By defining a metric of 1, we can enable a route Performance analysis of selected interior gateway dynamic
to travel the highest number of hops in the domain of a RIP. routing protocols such as RIPv2, EIGRP and OSPF and their
Though doing this raise the possibility of routing loops if there different performance issues have been investigated in this
are several redistribution points and a router acquire article. We have also presented a simulated work and the
knowledge about the network with a preferable metric from performance of redistribution command to establish
the redistribution point than from the original source. Hence it communication between end users of different networks with
is necessary that the metric is neither too high, restraining it different routing protocol. Route redistribution technology
from being advertised to all the routers, or too low, guiding to between diverse routing protocols has significant importance.
routing loops when multiple redistribution points are Route redistribution is certainly easily realized and cost
presented. effective technique. Through using it we can also settle
B. Redistributing into EIGRP Tactical Internet Communication. Besides, comparative
EIGRP is a hybrid routing protocol that, by default, uses a analysis among several routing protocol shows that the EIGRP
composite of bandwidth and delay as its distance metric. protocol is better than the OSPF and RIPv2 routing protocol.
EIGRP can additionally consider Reliability, Load, and MTU But sometime EIGRP is held back by its proprietary features
for its metric. An EIGRP router 0 in the figure-3 redistributing and costs. OSPF is better than other in large networks where
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and RIP through the its hierarchical nature increases scalability. And RIPv2 is
commands- useful in local and small area network. The redistribution
command shows the way to communicate with different
router eigrp 1 routing protocols.
network 192.168.1.0
REFERENCES
redistribute ospf 1
redistribute rip [1] Thorenoor, S.G. ,“Dynamic Routing Protocol Implementation Decision
between EIGRP, OSPF and RIP Based on Technical Background Using
default−metric 10000 100 255 1 1500 OPNET Modeler”, 2010 Second International Conference on Computer
and Network Technology (ICCNT), pp. 191-195,2010.
TABLE I. EIGRP METRIC VALUES IN THE DEFAULT METRIC [2] Li Lan , Li Li , Chen Jianya , “A Multipath Routing Algorithm Based on
COMMAND OSPF Routing Protocol” 2012 Eighth International Conference on
Semantics, Knowledge and Grids (SKG), pp. 269-272,2012.
Metric Value
[3] Alex Hinds, Anthony Atojoko, Shao Ying Zhu ,“ Evaluation of OSPF
and EIGRP Routing Protocols for IPv6”, International Journal of Future
Bandwidth In units of kilobits per second; 10000 for Ethernet
Computer and Communication, Vol. 2, No. 4, August 2013.
Delay In units of tens of microseconds; for Ethernet it is100 x 10 [4] Ittiphon krinpayorm , Suwat Pattaramalai,“ Link Recovery Comparison
microseconds = 1 ms Between OSPF & EIGRP”,International Proceedings of Computer
Science & Information Technology, Vol. 27,pp.192-197,2012.
Reliability 255 for 100 percent reliability
[5] Li, Xiaohua, et al. ,“ Simulation and analysis of RIPv2 routing
Load Effective load on the link expressed as a number from 0 to authentication based on GNS” International Conference on Automatic
255 (255 is 100 percent loading) Control and Artificial Intelligence (ACAI 2012), pp. 1842-1845,2012.
MTU Minimum MTU of the path; usually equals that for the [6] Y.Navaneeth Krishnan , Dr Shobha G , “Performance Analysis of OSPF
Ethernet interface, which is 1500 bytes and EIGRP Routing Protocols for Greener Internetworking” ,
Proceedings of International Conference on Green High Performance
Computing ,pp. 1-4, 2013.
C. Redistributing into OSPF [7] Rick Graziani , Allan Jonson, “Routing protocols and concepts: CCNA
OSPF is a standardized Link-State routing protocol that exploration companion guide” Pearson Education. London,2008.
uses cost ,based on bandwidth, as its link-state metric. To [8] Alex Hinds, Anthony Atojoko, and Shao Ying Zhu, “Evaluation of
show an OSPF router 3 in the figure-3 redistributing RIP [13] OSPF and EIGRP Routing Protocols for IPv6”, International Journal of
and EIGRP we need - Future Computer and Communication, Vol. 2, No. 4, August 2013.
[9] S. G. Thorenoor, "Dynamic routing protocol implementation decision
router ospf 1 between EIGRP, OSPF and RIP based on technical background using
network 192.168.4.0 0.0.0.255 area 0 OPNET modeller," Proceedings of Second International Conference on
Computer and Network Technology, China, pp. 191-195,2010.
redistribute rip metric 200 subnets
[10] M. N. Islam, M. A. U. Ashique,"Simulation based EIGRP over OSPF
redistribute eigrp 1 metric 100 subnets performance analysis," Master Thesis in Electrical Engineering
The OSPF metric is a cost value based on 108 / bandwidth Emphasis on Telecommunications, No. 4983, Blekinge Institute of
of the link in bits/sec. For example, the OSPF cost of Ethernet Technology, 2010.
is 10: 108 / 107 = 10. If a metric is not specified, OSPF puts a [11] Franck Le ,JL Sobrinho,“Interconnecting Routing Instances”,
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking , Vol. 22, Issue. 2, April 2014.
default value of 20 when redistributing routes from all [12] Liang Zhijian,“ The New Data Exchange method in Different
protocols except Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routes, Networks”, 2010 International Coriference on Educational and
which get a metric of 1. Information Technology (ICEIT 2010),Vol. 2,pp. 69-72, 2010.
[13] Franck Le, Geoffrey G. Xie, Hui Zhang, “Understanding Route
Redistribution”,IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols
(ICNP ),pp. 81-92, October 2007.