Analysis of RIP, OSPF, and EIGRP Routing Protocols using PACKET TRACER

A MINOR /MAJOR PROJECT REPORT

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OFTHE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY(Electronics & Communication Engineering)

SUBMITTED TOGURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR

SUBMITTED BYName of Student(s)University Roll No.Abhishek Dhiman2012ECA1003Akshit Vig2012ECA1005

SUPERVISED BYEr. Karamdeep SinghGURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR , PUNJAB

CERTIFICATEI hereby certify that the work which is being presented in the B.Tech. MajorProject Report entitled, AnalysisofRIP, OSPFandEIGRPRoutingProtocolsusingPACKET TRACER , in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Bachelor of Technology in Electronics & Communication Engineering and submitted to the Department of Electronics Technology of Guru Nanak dev University, Amritsar, Punjabis an authentic record of my own work carried out during a period from January2015to May2015(6th semester) under the supervision ofEr. Karamdeep Singh , Electronics Technology Department.The matter presented in this Project Report has not been submitted by me for the award of any other degree elsewhere.Signature of Students

Akshit Vig(2012ECA1005)Abhishek Dhiman(2012ECA1003)

This is to certify that the above statement made by the student(s) is correct to the best of my knowledge.Signature of Supervisor(s)Date:Name & Designation

HeadElectronics Technology DepartmentGuru Nanak Dev University, AmritsarTable of ContentsPage no.Acknowledgementi

Abstractii

List of Tablesiii

List of Figuresiv

CHAPTERSIntroduction.....................................................................................................................................5

Background......................................................................................................................................6

2.1RoutingInformationProtocol(RIP).............................................................................................72.2OpenShortestPathFirst(OSPF).....................................................................................................72.3EnhancedInteriorGatewayRoutingProtocol(EIGRP)...........................................................83Implementation...............................................................................................................................93.1NetworkTopologies............................................................................................................................93.1.1SmallRingTopology.......................................................................................................................................93.1.2SmallMeshTopology..................................................................................................................................103.1.3LargeMeshTopology..................................................................................................................................113.1.4LargeTreeTopology....................................................................................................................................113.2SimulationParameters&CollectedStatistics.........................................................................123.3RoutingProtocolParameters........................................................................................................123.3.1RIPParameters..............................................................................................................................................123.3.2OSPFParameters...........................................................................................................................................133.3.3EIGRPParameters........................................................................................................................................144Results.............................................................................................................................................154.1RoutingTables....................................................................................................................................154.2PerformanceResults........................................................................................................................174.2.1SmallRingTopology....................................................................................................................................174.2.2SmallMeshTopology..................................................................................................................................184.2.3LargeMeshTopology..................................................................................................................................204.2.4LargeTreeTopology....................................................................................................................................215Discussion........................................................................................................................................245.1Analysis.................................................................................................................................................245.2ImprovementsandFutureWork.................................................................................................245.3DifficultiesandSolutions................................................................................................................256. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................26References..............................................................................................................................................27Appendix A: List of Acronyms.........................................................................................................28Appendix B: Work on LTE...............................................................................................................29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This is humble effort to express our sincere gratitude towards those who have guided and helped us to complete this project report.No endeavour can successfully accomplish without any active participation, sincere assistance and encouraging inspiration of other. It is with the grace of god and overwhelming response by our teachers and friends that we have been able to complete this project report.We find it a great matter in showing our indebtedness and thankfulness .It was purely on the basis of theoretical and technical hurdles during the training period. We are extremely thankful to him for devoting his valuable time and imparting knowledge to us.Akshit Vig

Abhishek Dhiman

AbstractRouting protocols determine the best routes to transfer data from one node to another and specify how routers communicate between each other in order to complete this task. There are different classes of routing protocols, two of which are Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) and Interior Gateway Routing (IGR). A routing protocol can be dynamic or static, as well as distance-vector or link-state. In this project, we will focus on Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), and Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP).All three protocols are dynamic IGPs, meaning that these protocols route packets within one Autonomous System (AS). RIP is a distance-vector protocol; EIGRP is an enhanced distance vector protocol developed by Cisco and OSPF is a link-state routing protocol. Detailed descriptions of these routing protocols are provided later in this report. We will study characteristics such as convergence time and routing traffic sent within small and large topologies. Using PACKET TRACER, we will obtain simulation results for the specified routing protocols and compare performance in order to determine the best routing protocol for a given network topology.

List of TablesTable3.1: RIP ParametersTable3.2: OSPF ParametersTable3.3: EIGRP ParametersTable4.1: RIP Routing TableTable4.2: OSPF Routing TableTable4.3: EIGRP Routing TableTable4.4: Convergence durations (seconds) of small ring topologyTable4.5: Convergence durations (seconds) of small mesh topologyTable4.6: Convergence durations (seconds) of large mesh topologyTable4.7: Convergence durations (seconds) of large tree topology

Appendix A: List of AcronymsAS: Autonomous SystemBER: Bit Error RateBGP: Border Gateway ProtocolDES: Discrete Event SimulationDUA: Diffusing Update AlgorithmEGP: Exterior Gateway ProtocolEIGRP: Interior Gateway Routing ProtocolIGP: Interior Gateway ProtocolIP: Internet ProtocolLSA: Link State AdvertisementOSPF: Open Shortest Path FirstRIP: Routing Information ProtocolSPF: Shortest Path FirstUDP: User Datagram Protocol

1IntroductionOn the network layer, achieving routing convergence, the process in which routing tables are updated, is a crucial and complex process. At every topology change, including a link failure or recovery, the routing tables need to be updated at which time the convergence process takes place. The task of updating these tables is accomplished by routers that communicate according to a set of rules set by routing protocols. The main goals of any routing protocol are to achieve fast convergence, while remaining simple, flexible, accurate and robust. In this project, we analyze and compare the convergence times of three protocols: Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), and Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP).We will consider different topologies or different sizes, each of which will be simulated on PACKET TRACER. We will simulate each topology with all three routing protocols and collect statistics such as convergence time and routing traffic sent. We will also analyze the routing tables of a simple network topology in order to study the metrics of each protocol and gain a better understanding of how routes are chosen. By examining the results (convergence times in particular), we will identify the routing protocol with the best performance for a large, realistic network.Finally, we will discuss the limitations that exist within our project and network implementations of the routing protocols. Furthermore, we will provide possible modifications that could be explored for future work.2BackgroundRouting links together small networks to form huge internetworks that span vast regions. This cumbersome task makes the network layer the most complex in the OSI reference model. The network layer provides the transfer of packets across the network. Routing protocols define the path of each packet from source to destination. To complete this task, routers use routing tables, which contain information about possible destinations in the network and the metrics (distance, cost, bandwidth, etc.) to these destinations. Routers have information regarding the neighbor routers around them. The degree of a routers network knowledge and awareness depends on the routing protocol it uses. At every change in the network, including link failure and link recovery, routing tables must be updated. The efficiency of these updates determines the efficiency of the routing protocols.There are two main types of routing protocols: static routing and dynamic routing. Static routing assumes that the network is fixed, meaning no nodes are added or removed and routing tables are therefore only manually updated. Dynamic or adaptive routing, more commonly used for internetworking, allows changes in the network topology by using routing tables that update with each network change. In this report we will only consider dynamic routing protocols. Within the class of dynamic protocols, we can have Interior or Exterior Gateway Protocols. EGPs deals with routing information between different autonomous. An example of an EGP is Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). The three routing protocols we chose to compare are IGPs, protocols that exchange routing information within an AS. These protocols can either use distance vector (such as RIP and EIGRP) or link-state algorithms (such as OSPF) to optimize convergence times. In this project we will compare the three dynamic routing protocols shown on the right of the hierarchy chart below: RIP, OSPF and EIGRP.

Figure1.1: Hierarchy Chart of Routing Protocols2.1Routing Information Protocol (RIP):The Routing Information Protocol (RIP), which is a distance-vector based algorithm, is one of the first routing protocols implemented on TCP/IP. Information is sent through the network using UDP. Each router that uses this protocol has limited knowledge of the network around it. This simple protocol uses a hop count mechanism to find an optimal path for packet routing. A maximum number of16hops are employed to avoid routing loops. However, this parameter limits the size of the networks that this protocol can support. The popularity of this protocol is largely due to its simplicity and its easy configurability. However, its disadvantages include slow convergence times, and its scalability limitations. Therefore, this protocol works best for smallscaled networks.2.2Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is a very widely used link-state interior gateway protocols (IGP). This protocol routes Internet Protocol (IP) packets by gathering link-state information

Fig2.2.1ROUTING USING OSPF PROTOCOL

from neighboring routers and constructing a map of the network. OSPF routers send many message types including hello messages, link state requests and updates and database descriptions. Djisktras algorithm is then used to find the shortest path to the destination. ShortestPath First (SPF) calculations are computed either periodically or upon a received Link StateAdvertisement (LSA), depending on the protocol implementation. Topology changes aredetected very quickly using this protocol. Another advantage of OSPF is that its many configurable parameters make it a very flexible and robust protocol. Contrary to RIP, however, OSPF has the disadvantage of being too complicated.Shortest Path First SPF algorithm (Dijkstra algorithm)OSPF use SPF algorithm to calculate the shortest path between points in the network usingDijkstra algorithm. The Dijkstra SPF routing algorithm is the basis for OSPF operations.How SPF works?When a router is booted, its assured that its interfaces are up and working, then use the OSPF Hello packets to find neighbors. The router sends hello packets to its neighbors and receives their hello packets back. All routers exchange link-states by means of flooding. Each router that receives a link-state update using this router build its link state database and then propagate the update to other routers.On multi-access environment, DR router is selected which is responsible for generating LSAs for the entire multi-access network.When the link-state databases of two neighboring routers are synchronized, the routers are said to be adjacent. Then router uses the Dijkstra algorithm in order to calculate the shortest path tree.The destinations, the associated cost and the next hop to reach those destinations form the IP routing table.The algorithm places each router at the root of a tree and calculates the shortest path to each destination based on cost required to reach that destination. Each router will have its own view of the topology even though all the routers will build a shortest path tree using the same link-state database.Whenever there is a change in OSPF network, it is communicated through link-state updates, and the Dijkstra algorithm is recalculated in order to find the shortest path.the rouing table using the ospf routing protocol is shown in fig2.1

Fig2.2.2ROUTINGTABLEUSINGOSPFROUTINGPROTOCOL

Consider the following network diagram with the indicated interface costs. Now suppose that router0want to calculate the shortest path to router4, for this we make Router0the root of the tree and calculate the smallest cost for its destination router4.

In network diagram you can see that Router0have two paths to router4. One has total cost of12(1+10+1) to reach router4and second have a cost of6(5+1). Router0chose the second path as a shortest path using SPF because this path has less cost to reach. Similarly all routers in network set himself as root and calculate the shortest to destination.

2.3Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)EIGRP is a Cisco-developed advanced distance-vector routing protocol. Routers using this protocol automatically distribute route information to all neighbors. The Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUA) is used for routing optimization, fast convergence, as well as to avoid routing loops. Full routing information is only exchanged once upon neighbor establishment, after which only partial updates are sent. When a router is unable to find a path through the network, it sends out a query to its neighbors, which propagates until a suitable route is found. This need-based update is an advantage over other protocols as it reduces traffic between routers and therefore saves bandwidth. The metric that is used to find an optimal path is calculated with variables bandwidth, load, delay and reliability. By incorporating many such variables, the protocol ensures that the best path is found. Also, compared to other distance-vector algorithms, EIGRP has a larger maximum hop limitation, which makes it compatible with large networks. The disadvantage of EIGRP is that it is a Cisco proprietary protocol, meaning it is only compatible with Cisco technology.Diffusing Update Algorithm An Introduction
Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL) is the convergence algorithm used by EIGRP instead of the Bellman-Ford or Ford Fulkerson algorithms used by other distance vector routing protocols, like RIP. DUAL is based on research conducted at SRI International, using calculations that were first proposed by E.W. Dijkstra and C.S. Scholten. The most prominent work with DUAL has been done by J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves.
Routing loops, even temporary ones, can be extremely detrimental to network performance. Distance vector routing protocols such as RIP prevent routing loops with hold-down timers and split horizon. Although EIGRP uses both of these techniques, it uses them somewhat differently; the primary way that EIGRP prevents routing loops is with the DUAL algorithm.
The DUAL algorithm is used to obtain loop-freedom at every instant throughout a route computation. This allows all routers involved in a topology change to synchronize at the same time. Routers that are not affected by the topology changes are not involved in the recomputation. This method provides EIGRP with faster convergence times than other distance vector routing protocols.
The decision process for all route computations is done by the DUAL Finite State Machine. In general terms, a finite state machine (FSM) is a model of behavior composed of a finite number of states, transitions between those states, and events or actions that create the transitions.
The DUAL FSM tracks all routes, uses its metric to select efficient, loop-free paths, and selects the routes with the least cost path to insert into the routing table.
Because recomputation of the DUAL algorithm can be processor-intensive, it is advantageous to avoid recomputation whenever possible. Therefore, DUAL maintains a list of backup routes it has already determined to be loop-free. If the primary route in the routing table fails, the best backup route is immediately added to the routing table.
Administrative distance (AD) is the trustworthiness (or preference) of the route source. EIGRP has a default administrative distance of90for internal routes and170for routes imported from an external source, such as default routes. When compared to other interior gateway protocols (IGPs), EIGRP is the most preferred by the Cisco IOS because it has the lowest administrative distance.
Notice in the figure that EIGRP has a third AD value, of5, for summary routes. Later in this chapter, you will learn how to configure EIGRP summary routes.

Basic EIGRP configuration
AutonomousSystem
An autonomous system (AS) is a collection of networks under the administrative control of a single entity that presents a common routing policy to the Internet. In the figure, companies A, B, C, and D are all under the administrative control of ISP1. ISP1"presents a common routing policy" for all of these companies when advertising routes to ISP2.
The guidelines for the creation, selection, and registration of an autonomous system are described in RFC1930. AS numbers are assigned by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the same authority that assigns IP address space. You learned about IANA and its Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in a previous course. The local RIR is responsible for assigning an AS number to an entity from its block of assigned AS numbers. Prior to2007, AS numbers were16-bit numbers, ranging from0to65535. Now32-bit AS numbers are assigned, increasing the number of available AS numbers to over4billion.
Who needs an autonomous system number? Usually ISPs (Internet Service Providers), Internet backbone providers, and large institutions connecting to other entities that also have an AS number. These ISPs and large institutions use the exterior gateway routing protocol Border Gateway Protocol, or BGP, to propagate routing information. BGP is the only routing protocol that uses an actual autonomous system number in its configuration.
The vast majority of companies and institutions with IP networks do not need an AS number because they come under the control of a larger entity such as an ISP. These companies use interior gateway protocols such as RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, and IS-IS to route packets
within their own networks. They are one of many independent and separate networks within the autonomous system of the ISP. The ISP is responsible for the routing of packets within its autonomous system and between other autonomous systems.
Process ID
Both EIGRP and OSPF use a process ID to represent an instance of their respective routing protocol running on the router.

Fig2.3.1ROUTING TABLE OF EIGRPRouter(config)#router eigrp autonomous-system
Although EIGRP refers to the parameter as an "autonomous-system" number, it actually functions as a process ID. This number is not associated with an autonomous system number discussed previously and can be assigned any16-bit value.
Router(config)#router eigrp1
In this example, the number1identifies this particular EIGRP process running on this router. In order to establish neighbor adjacencies, EIGRP requires all routers in the same routing domain to be configured with the same process ID. Typically, only a single process ID of any routing protocol would be configured on a router.3ImplementationIn this section, we will discuss the breakdown of the project implementation from initiating the topologies to setting various protocol and simulation parameters. In the following sections, we will present the obtained simulation results and compare the performance of the three routing protocols.In order to compare RIP, OSPF and EIGRP, we used PACKET TRACER16.0to implement four networks: two small topologies and two large topologies. These implementations were realized using Cisco routers connected by PPP_DS1. The small ring and mesh topologies that we implemented, though unrealistic, are simple examples that are easy to analyze and focus on routing protocol behavior and performance. In other words, the purpose of the two simple topologies is for validation of the routing protocols. We obtained routing tables from the small ring topology in order to better understand the routing system of each protocol. The large mesh and tree topologies implemented are more realistic and serve as better models for real-world communication networks.3.1Network Topologies3.1.1SmallRingTopologyIn ring topology, each host machine connects to exactly two other machines, creating a circular network structure. When one host tries to communicate or send message to a host which is not adjacent to it, the data travels through all intermediate hosts. To connect one more host in the existing structure administrator may need only one more extra cable.Figure3.1: Simple Ring Topology3.1.2SmallMeshTopologyIn this type of topology, a host is connected to one or two or more than two hosts. This topology may have hosts having point-to-point connection to every other hosts or may also have hosts which are having point to point connection to few hosts only.

Figure3.2: Simple Mesh TopologyHosts in Mesh topology also work as relay for other hosts which do not have direct point-to-point links. Mesh technology comes into two flavors: Full Mesh: All hosts have a point-to-point connection to every other host in the network. Thus for every new host n(n-1)/2cables (connection) are required. It provides the most reliable network structure among all network topologies. Partially Mesh: Not all hosts have point-to-point connection to every other host. Hosts connect to each other in some arbitrarily fashion. This topology exists where we need to provide reliability to some host whereas others are not as such necessary.

Figure3.3: Large Mesh Topology3.1.4LargeTreeTopologyAlso known as Hierarchical Topology is the most common form of network topology in use present day. This topology imitates as extended Star Topology and inherits properties of Bus topology. This topology divides the network in to multiple levels/layers of network. Mainly in LANs, a network is bifurcated into three types of network devices. The lowest most is access-layer where users computer are attached. The middle layer is known as distribution layer, which works as mediator between upper layer and lower layer. The highest most layer is known as Core layer, and is central point of the network, i.e. root of the tree from which all nodes fork.Figure3.4: Large Tree TopologyAll neighboring hosts have point-to-point connection between them. Like bus topology, if the root goes down, the entire network suffers. Though it is not the single point of failure. Every connection serves as point of failure, failing of which divides the network into unreachable segment and so on.3.2Simulation Parameters & Collected StatisticsWe chose to collect three sets of statistics.First,for the small ringtopology we exported the routing tables of each protocol after thelink failure.These tablesserve to give us a better understanding ofeach protocol.Next,for all scenarios we collected ConvergenceActivity,Convergence Duration(sec) and Traffic Sent(bits/sec).Itshould be noted that the traffic sent only includes routingtraffic,as we have not implemented user applications.Here we mentionthe simulation parameters that are common to all network topologiesand all protocols implementations.First,we simulate each scenario for10minutes,with a random seed of128.Also,the link failure occurs at300seconds,and recoveroccurs at480seconds.Each protocol startswith a constant distribution and a mean outcome of5.In PAcket TracerDiscrete Event Simulation(DES) preferences window, we disabled RIP,OSPF,and EIGRP simulation efficiency to ensure that these protocolscontinue throughout the entire simulation.

3.3Routing Protocol Parameters3.3.1RIPParametersThe following table lists and describes the RIP protocol parameters. It should be noted that the parameters that define RIP are the maximum hop count and the update interval. Unlike the other protocols we are analyzing, RIP routers send their full routing information periodically, according to the update interval parameter in the first row. The default PACKET TRACER values for these and other parameters are also shown below.Table3.1RIP ParametersDescriptionDefault

Update Interval (seconds)How often a router sends updates to its neighbors30seconds

Route Invalid (seconds)Used to indicate an invalid route. This timer is initialized when the route is inserted into the routing table. When it expires, the route is removed.

180seconds

Flush (seconds)Indicates that a route should be removed from the routing table. This value should be greater than the Route Invalid parameter.240seconds

Holddown(seconds)Used to avoid route flapping. This timer starts when Route Invalid expires. During holddown time, updates regarding invalid routes are ignored.180seconds

Maximum hopsMaximum number of packet supported by RIP.Implemented in order to prevent endless loops. If this value is too low, network size is limited. If this value is too high, packets may get stuck in loops.16hops

Advertisement ModeSpecified how a router advertises to its neighbors. Three options on PACKET TRACER:1. No Filtering: Advertises routes to all neighbors2. Split Horizon:Does not advertise route to the neighbor from which route was learned.3. Split Horizon with Poison Reverse: Advertises route to neighbor from which route was learned with a metric of infinity (or max16).Split Horizon with Poison Reverse

3.3.2OSPFParametersThe table below presents various OSPF parameters. These parameters differ greatly from those of RIP because OSPF is a link-state algorithm, which means it maps out the network before choosing the best routing path. This protocol has many more parameters with much more complexity than RIP.Table3.2OSPF ParametersDescriptionDefault

Interface costCost of each interface can be specified. These values are used to calculate the shortest path.1

Hello interval (seconds)How often a router sends hello messages to its neighbors. If this parameter is too small, more router traffic results. This increases the risk of dropped packets, which could result in false alarms. If interval is too big, topology changes will take longer to be detected, and router dead interval may expire.10seconds

Router dead interval (seconds)Used to declare neighbor routers dead when no Hello messages have been received. This interval should be a multiple of the Hello interval.40seconds

Transmission delay (seconds)Estimated time to transmit a Link State Advertisement (LSA) packet.1.0seconds

Retransmission interval (seconds)Time between LSA retransmissions. Must be greater than the expected round-trip time between any two routers in the network.5.0seconds

SPF Calculation ParametersSpecifies how often shortest paths are recalculated. Two Options:Periodic: Recalculate at each specified interval, unless no change has occurred.

LSA driven: Recalculate after every LSA has been received.

LSA Driven

3.3.3EIGRPParametersThe table below shows the EIGRP parameters. The maximum hop parameter of100allows for larger network sizes than RIPs16hops. EIGRP also uses hello messages and a hold time timer similar to OSPF in order to detect topology changes. As we can see, EIGRP does not have many configurable parameters because it is a proprietary protocol.Table3.3EIGRP ParametersDescriptionDefault

Maximum Hops(As described for RIP)100hops

Hello Interval(seconds)(As described for OSPF)5seconds

Hold Time(seconds)Same function as Router dead interval for OSPF3HelloTimes

Split HorizonWhen enabled, Split Horizon does not advertise route to the neighbor from which route was learned.Enabled

4Results4.1Routing TablesRouting tables lists the routes from a node to other nodes in the network and includes the metric (e.g. hop count, cost, or delay) and the next hop towards the destination. Once a topology change is detected, the routing tables are updated in order to reach convergence. Each router has its individual routing table and the number of entries in this table is dependent on the number of nodes in the network. For the purpose of our project, we analyzed the routing tables of our ring topology, where every router has2neighbors.We obtained the routing tables for each routing protocol in order to compare their outputs at350seconds, when the link between Router1and Router2is still in a failed state. The routing table for Router1using RIP is shown below. The metric used for RIP is the hop count shown in the third column. The first row shows the metric of IF10link from Router1to Router2as16, whichis the maximum hop value in RIP, because the link has failed.Table4.1: RIP Routing TableDestinationDestination NodeMetricNext Hop AddressNext Hop NodeOutgoing Interface

192.0.0.0/24Router216192.0.0.1Router1IF10

192.0.1.0/24Router10192.0.1.1Router1IF11

192.0.2.0/24Router43192.0.1.2Router5IF11

192.0.3.0/24Router51192.0.1.2Router5IF11

192.0.4.0/24Router32192.0.1.2Router5IF11

We used OSPFs interface cost parameters to change the cost of each interface in order to investigate the effects on the routing table.

Figure4.1: Simple Ring Topology including link costsBelow is Router1s routing table at350seconds using OSPF. The metric displayed in the third column is the interface cost we implemented. As expected, when the link from Router1to Router2fails, packets are all routed to their destination through Router5.Table4.2: OSPF Routing TableDestinationDestination NodeMetricNext Hop AddressNext Hop NodeOutgoing Interface

192.0.1.0/24Router54192.0.1.0Router1IF11

192.0.2.0/24Router221192.0.1.2Router5IF11

192.0.3.0/24Router46192.0.1.2Router5IF11

192.0.4.0/24Router311192.0.1.2Router5IF11

Below is the equivalent EIGRP routing table. The metric in the third column is calculated by the protocol. It is calculated using the following formula which is valid when coefficient K5=0:

Our default values are K1=K3=1, K2=K4=K5=0and bandwidth =1.544Mbps where minimum bandwidth is in Kbps and delay is in.This value is approximately equal to the metric in the table below.Additionally, the table includes successors metric, which is the metric from the routers neighbor closest to the destination.Table4.3: EIGRP Routing TableDestinationDestination NodeMetric/Successor's MetricNext Hop AddressNextHopNodeOutgoing InterfaceDelay (msec)

192.0.1.0/24Router52169856/0192.0.1.1Router1IF1120.00

192.0.2.0/24Router23705856/3193856192.0.1.2Router5IF1180.00

192.0.3.0/24Router42681856/2169856192.0.1.2Router5IF1140.00

192.0.4.0/24Router33193856/2681856192.0.1.2Router5IF1160.00

4.2Performance Results4.2.1SmallRingTopologyFigure4.2shows the router traffic sent in bits/sec of the three protocols in a small ring network. From the graph of routing traffic sent we observe that EIGRP has the highest bandwidth efficiency while RIP has the lowest. It should be noted that OSPF has better bandwidth efficiency than EIGRP when there are no new routers added. OSPF has the highest initial peak because the routers must first map out the network before choosing a path. This requires routers to distribute a significant amount of information initially.

Figure4.2: Routing Traffic Sent in bits/sec for Small RingThe figure below shows the convergence activity of each protocol. The first, second, and third peaks represents the initial setup, the link failure at300seconds, and link recovery at480seconds. The width of each peak represents the convergence duration. The longer a protocol takes to converge, the wider the peak will be. From these results we observe that EIGRP has the fastest convergence in all the stages while OSPF has a faster convergence time than RIP during a link-failure.

Figure4.3: Convergence Activity for Small RingThe table below displays the approximate convergence durations, including initial convergence, convergence after link failure and convergence after link recovery. From this table it is clear that OSPF is much quicker at detecting and recovering from a link failure than it is at realizing convergence initially and after link recovery.Table4.4: Convergence durations (seconds) of small ring topologyRIPOSPFEIGRP

InitialConvergence415