Routing protocols are key elements of modern communication networks. Currently deployed dynamic routing protocols that are used to propagate network topology information to the neighboring routers are Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP), and the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol. The choice of the right routing protocol depends on a number of parameters. In this paper, we use OPNET Modeler to analyze the performance of RIP, EIGRP, and the OSPF protocols, which are commonly deployed in Internet Protocol (IP) networks. We designed various simulation scenarios to compare their performance. 1

Trajkovic, Ljiljana

Xu, Don

Simon Fraser University Institutional Repository

Copyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.1Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, and OSPF using OPNETDon Xu and Ljiljana TrajkovićSimon Fraser UniversityVancouver, British Columbia{donx, ljilja}@sfu.cahttp://www.ensc.sfu.ca/~ljilja/cnl/Copyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.2Roadmap IntroductionDynamic routing protocols overview: Routing Information Protocol (RIP) Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)OPNET models of routing protocolsSimulation scenariosSimulation resultsConclusionsReferencesCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.3IntroductionRouting is the process of selecting paths in a networkRouting protocols are key elements of modern communication networks Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP): within an Autonomous System (AS)• RIP, EIGRP, and OSPFExterior Gateway Protocol (EGP): between ASs • Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)Metrics: cost, bandwidth, maximum transmission unit (MTU), packet delay, and hop countOPNET Modeler was used to compare performance of RIP, EIGRP, and OSPFCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.4Dynamic Routing ProtocolsDynamic routing protocols:• an important role in today’s networks• router dynamically advertise and learn routes• determine available routes and identify the most efficient routes to a destinationAdvantages of dynamic routing protocols:• better scalability and adaptability• less administrative overhead• capability to maintain failure or topology changeDistance vector (DV) vs. link state (LS) routing:• short distance vs. the best path• DV routing protocol: RIP, IGRP• LS routing protocol: EIGRP, OSPF, and IS-ISCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.5Routing Information Protocol (RIP)RIP:• distance vector routing protocol• using UPD port 520• maximum hop number: 15• distance metric: number of hops• exchanged every 30 seconds• convergence time: 30 to 60 seconds• less power and memory• suitable for all types of routing devicesCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.6Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol):• CISCO proprietary routing protocol • Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL)• Metrics: reliability, MTU, delay, load, and bandwidth• Three tables: neighbor’s table topology table routing table• Loop-free and fast convergenceCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.7Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)Open Shortest Path First (OSPF):• Publicly available• Uses Link State algorithm: topology map at each node route computation using Dijkstra’s algorithm Link State Advertisement (LSA) Link State Database (LSD)• Scalabe and has faster convergence• More complex, processor intensive, and increased memory demandsCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.8OPNET Models of Routing ProtocolsOPNET 14.0ANetwork:• five subnets connected with PPP DS3 (44.736 Mbps)• subnets: Cisco 7200 routers, 3600 switches, Ethernet server, 100BaseT LANsCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.9OPNET Models of Routing Protocols Six simulation scenarios• Subnet1 and Subnet5 fail at 300 s and recover at 500 s Application configurations• Four applications:Scenario nameRouting protocolFailure linkFail timeRecovery timeRIP no fail RIP N/A N/A N/AEIGRP no fail EIGRP N/A N/A N/AOSPF no fail OSPF N/A N/A N/ARIP RIP Subnet1–5 300 s 500 sEIGRP EIGRP Subnet1–5 300 s 500 sOSPF OSPF Subnet1–5 300 s 500 sEmail High loadHTTP HTTP 1.1, heavy browsingVideo Conferencing 15 frames/s, 128x240 pixelsVoice IP telephony and silence suppressedCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.103. After failure, NC: EIGRP is the shortest,       OSPF is the longest4. After failure,  RT: RIP is the smallest,           EIGRP is the highestSimulation Scenarios: (Network Convergence & Routing traffic)Without failure 1. Network Convergence: EIGRP is the  shortest, OSPF is the longest2. Routing traffic: RIP is the smallest, OSPF is the highestWith failure 1234Copyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.11Simulation Scenarios with failure:(Ethernet delay & Email upload response time) Ethernet delay:EIGRP is the lowestRIP the highest         Email upload response time:OSPF is the shortest before failure and the highest after recoveryCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.12Simulation Scenarios with failure:(HTTP page response time & Video packet delay) HTTP page response time:OSPF is the lowestRIP is the highest Video conferencing packet delay:OSPF is the lowestRIP is the highestCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.13Voice packet delay:RIP is the lowest, OSPF is the highestSimulation Scenarios with failure: (Voice packet delay)Copyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.14Analysis of Simulation ResultsRIP• better in voice packet delay • simple routing protocol and less protocol traffic• slower convergence timeEIGRP• better in network convergence, routing traffic, and Ethernet delay• less CPU and memory and short Convergence time• only using for Cisco OSPF• better in HTTP page response time and video conferencing delay• little bandwidth without change• fast converge, better for large network• more complexCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.15ConclusionsRouting protocols are key elements of communication networksUse OPNET Modeler as a powerful tool for network plannersDesign various scenarios and topologiesSimulate within specific terms an metricsAnalyze the performance of RIP, EIGRP, and the OSPFSelect the most suitable routing protocol Optimize network operation efficiencyCopyright © 2011 OPNET Technologies, Inc.  CONFIDENTIAL - RESTRICTED ACCESS: This information may not be disclosed, copied, or transmitted in any format without the prior written consent of OPNET Technologies, Inc.   Used with permission of the Author.16References S. G. Thornier, “Communication service provider’s choice between OSPF and IS-IS dynamic routing protocols and implementation criteria using OPNET simulator,” in Proc. Second International Conference on Computer and Network Technology (ICCNT), Bangkok, Thailand, Apr. 2010, p. 38–42. S. G. Thornier, “Dynamic routing protocol implementation decision between EIGRP, OSPF, and RIP based on technical background using OPNET Modeler,” in Proc. Second International Conference on Computer and Network Technology (ICCNT), Bangkok, Thailand, Apr. 2010, pp. 191–195. B. Fortz, J. Rexford, and M. Thorup, “Traffic engineering with traditional IP routing protocols,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 118–124, Oct. 2002. A. Feldmann, A. Greenberg, C. Lund, N. Reingold, and J. Rexford, “Netscape: traffic engineering for IP networks,” IEEE Network Magazine, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 11–19, Mar. 2000. Cisco, Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol [Online]. Available: http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Enhanced_Interior_Gateway_Routing_Protocol. H. Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 24th Edition. New York: Flatiron Publishing, 2008, p. 683. B. Fortz and M. Thorup, “Optimizing OSPF/IS–IS weights in a changing world,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 756–767, May 2002.

Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, and OSPF Using OPNET

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.228.3887

Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, and OSPF Using OPNET

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Simon Fraser University Institutional Repository