Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS Routing Protocols

Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and

ISIS Routing Protocols
Shailja Pant1, and Ankur Dumka2
1
M.Tech Student, Department of Computer Science and Engineering Uattrakhand Technical University,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, Email: [email protected]
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Petroleum and
Energy Studies, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, Email: [email protected]

Abstract: In computer network, routers are used for the purpose of moving the data or packets in a network. The
working of router is controlled by using routing protocols which are mainly divided into two types: interior gateway
routing protocols and exterior gateway routing protocols.
This paper focuses on analyzing the performance of four interior routing protocols i.e. RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS
when implemented on same network topology using Graphical Network Simulator (GNS3), and develop a simulator
application which would return routing table of nodes in the topology. Along with this, routing protocols are compared
on different parameters like hop count, administrative distance, route propagation, updates, path metric, time required
for reaching destination, round trip time etc.
Keywords: RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS, GNS3, RTT, TTL.

1. INTRODUCTION
Routing is the process of moving data packets from one node to another node in a network by using routers. To
route packets from source to destination, a router should contain the destination address, should knowneighbor
routers along with all possible routes. For obtaining all these information routing protocols are used. A routing
protocol determines the best path for a router to send packets in a network. A routing table is created by each
router that contains all the required information of routes.
The routing protocols are broadly classified as Interior and Exterior gateway protocols. Which are further
divided as distance vector, link state and path vector routing protocols as shown in figure1. In this paper four
interior routing protocols RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS are analyzed.

1.1. Routing Information Protocol (RIP):

Routing Information Protocol (RIP) is one of the most widely used intra-domain routing protocol based on the
distance vector routing algorithm. RIP was started as a part of Xerox Network System (XNS), but it was the
 Shailja Pant, and Ankur Dumka

Figure 1: Classification of routing protocol

Berkeley software Distribution (BSD) version of UNIX that helped make the use of RIP widespread [1].RIP
employs the hop count as a routing metric and implement limitation on the maximum hops allowed in a network,
thus prevent the routing loop problem. But as the hop count is limited to 15, it also limits the size of the network.
RIP selects the path which has least number of hops as the shortest path.
Characteristics:
• Type: It is a Distance Vector routing protocol
• Metric: number of jumps i.e. Hop Count
• Maximum jumps: The maximum number of jumps is 15
• Update timer: 30 sec
• Invalid Timer: 180 sec
• Flush Timer: 240 sec
• Holddown Timer: 180 sec

1.2. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)

Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) is an advanced distance vector routing protocol along
with the features of link state routing algorithm designed by Cisco system. Unlike other distance vector routing
protocols, EIGRP uses multicasting for sending the routing updates that helps in saving bandwidth as well as
system time too. It only sends incremental updates, reducing the workload on the router, i.e. it sends partial
trigger updates only when a change occurs. EIGRP uses diffusing update algorithm (DUAL) to improve the
efficiency and to prevent calculation errors and help in attaining fast convergence.
EIGRP uses composite metric for selecting the best path in a network which includesbandwidth, delay,
load and reliability. EIGRP metric can be calculated by using following formula:
Metric = [K1*bandwidth+(K2*bandwidth) /(256 - load)+K3*delay] * [K5/(reliability+K4)]
Where: K1,K3=1 and K2,K4,K5=0.
Characteristics:
 Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS Routing Protocols

• Type: It is an Advanced Distance Vector routing protocol.

• Routes IP, IPX, DECnet, AppleTalk
• Routing Advertisements: Partial advertisements are done i.e. onlywhen any route Changes Occurs.
• Metrics:a composite metric of Bandwidth, Delay, Reliability and Load is used.
• Hop Count: 255 is the maximum hop count.
• Hello Timer: 1 second on Ethernet, 60 seconds on Non-Broadcast
• Holddown Timer: 3 seconds on Ethernet, 180 seconds on Non-Broadcast.

1.3. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)

Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is also an intra-domain based on link state routing protocol. It is a routing
protocol developed for Internet Protocol (IP) network by IGP working group of the internet [1]. OSPF uses
Dijkstra algorithm for selecting the best route to send packets in a network. OSPF divides Autonomous system
into areas for handling routing in an efficient and timely manner. In OSPF, router uses routing packets known as
Link State Packets (LSA) to obtain and maintain the state of link. Areas in OSPF are Primary area (Backbone
Area) and Secondary area (Stub-area, Not-so-stubby area (NSSA), Totally stubby area, NSSA totally stubby
area). Routers inside an area flood the area with routing information. At the border of an area, special routers
called Area Border Routers (ABR)summarize the information about the area and send it to other areas. The
routers inside the backbone are called the Backbone Routers (BR). [2]
Characteristics:
• Type: It is a Link State routing protocol.
• Routing Advertisements: Partial advertisements are done i.e. only when any route Change Occurs.
• Metric:Bandwidth and delay are used as metrics.
• Hop Count: None i.e. hop count are limited by the network.
• Load: Load Balancing is across 4 equal cost paths
• LSA Types: Intra-Area (1,2) Inter-Area (3,4), External (5,7)
• Fast Hello Timer: 250 msec. for Ethernet, 30 seconds for Non-Broadcast
• Dead Timer: 1 second for Ethernet, 120 seconds for Non-Broadcast.

1.4. Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS)

Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) is a link state routing protocol developed by Digital
Equipment Corporation (DECnet Phase V) and standardized by ISO in 1992. The purpose of IS-IS was to make
possible the routing of datagram using the ISO-developed OSIprotocol stack called CLNS. [3]
A router is termed as intermediate system in IS-IS. There is support for variable length subnet masks,
which is standard with all link state protocols. IS-IS assigns the routing process to an interface instead of a
network.IS-IS uses Dijkstra algorithm for shortest path selection. It provides two-level network hierarchy using
areas that are similar to OSPF. The routers in the backbone area are called L2 routers; the internal routers in low-
level areas are called L1 routers. IS-IS uses Link State Packets (LSP) packets to obtain and maintain the topological
map of the network.
Characteristics:
 Shailja Pant, and Ankur Dumka

• Type: It is Link State routing protocol.

• Routing Advertisements:Partial advertisements are done i.e. only when any route Change Occurs.
• Metric: Variable Cost (default cost 10 assigned to each interface)
• Hop Count:None i.e. hop count are limited by the network.
• Load: Load Balancing is done Across 6 Equal Cost Paths.
• Hello Timer Interval: 10 seconds
• Dead Timer Interval: 30 seconds
• Router Types: Level 1 and Level 2
• LSP Types: Internal L1 and L2, External L2.

2. RELATED WORK
Syed YasirJalali, SufyanWani and Majid Derwesh [4]compared the results of simulation for convergence,
throughput, link utilization and queuing delay concluding that the performance of EIGRP is the best among
all.Prachi Thakur and Yogesh Bansal [5] discussed different dynamic routing protocols, design issues and had
given pros and cons of RIP, EIGRP as well as OSPF. Vishal Nigam, Md. SamilFarouqui and Gunjan Gandhi [6]
focused on comparing dynamic routing protocols RIPv1, RIPv2, OSPF and EIGRP on the basis of various
parameters and shown difference between the distance vector and link state routing. Jeevan Prasad Adhikari[7]
has analyzed the performance of Protocols RIP & EIGRP and concluded that EIGRP protocol is better than RIP
protocol.Jagdeep Singh and Dr. Rajiv Mahajan [8] also analyzed routing protocolRIP, EIGRP and OSPF and
come to the conclusion that EIGRP perform better than other two as well as the combination of these three
routing protocols.Pankaj Rakheja, Prabhjotkaur, Anjali gupta and Aditi Sharma [9] have analyzed the performance
ofRIP, OSPF, IGRP and EIGRP on the basis of throughput, queuing delay and link utilization and concluded that
OSPF performs better than other protocols.An analysis of OSPF and ISIS is done by Oran Sharon [10] found
that the scheme suggested in IS-IS more efficient than OSPF in terms of arrival times of update packets. In terms
of bandwidth each scheme consumes, while in terms of the number of memory accesses, IS-IS outperforms
OSPF.

3. SIMULATION SETUP
A simulation network is developed by using Graphical Network Simulator (GNS3) for the purpose of analysis
of routing protocols.GNS3 is an open source software emulator developed primarily by Jeremy Grossmann in
2007 (additional developers are David Ruiz, Romain Lamaison, Aurelien Levesque, and Xavier Alt [11]) that
allows simulation of complex networks without having dedicated hardware such as routers and switches.
To provide complete and accurate simulations, GNS3 uses following emulators:
• Dynamips - a Cisco IOS emulator.
• Qemu - a generic and open source machine emulator and virtualizer.
• Virtual Box - free and powerful virtualization software.
For the purpose of designing a network topology Cisco router c7200, IOS image c7200-jk9s-mz.124-13b
is used as shown in figure 2.
The routing protocols are configured on each router one at a time. There are two modes for
configuration:privileged mode and global mode. For entering the privileged mode enable command is used.For
 Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS Routing Protocols

Figure 2: Network Topology design Using GNS3

making any global change to the router configure terminalcommand is used, that is in global configuration
mode. Aglobal command is set only once and affects the entirerouter [12].

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Routing Tables of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS are obtained after implementing them on each routerindependently
in same network scenario. Each routing table indicates the name of routing protocol along with network ip and
subnet mask, its AD value, metric,exit interface ip, length of time for which part particular route has been
present in routing table and finally the exit interface.

Table 1
Theoretical comparison of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS routing protocols.
 Shailja Pant, and Ankur Dumka

In table1 a comparison of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS is done on the basis of different theoretical parameters
that includes type of protocol, metric used by each protocol, limit of the hop count, type of update, timers,
convergence and support of VLSM as well as classless support is shown.

Table 2
Practical comparison of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS routing protocols

In table2 a comparison is shown between the different routing protocols that are implemented on a simulated
network and the round trip time as well as time-to-live are analyzed when a packet is sent from fist router (R1)
to last router (R6).
• Administrative Distance: AD measures the reliability of a given routing protocol. The lesser the
administrative distance, the more reliable the network.
• Round-trip time (RTT): It is the length of time taken to send a packet plus the length of time taken
for acknowledgement of that received packet as shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Round Trip Time taken by a packet from R1 to R6 in each protocol.

 Performance Analysis of RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS Routing Protocols

Figure 4: Time taken by a packet to reach the destination

• Time-to-live (TTL):The time-to-live value, also known as hop limit, is used in determining the
intermediate routers being traversed towards the destination and gives the time for which the packet
remains alive in the network as shown in figure 4.
The smallest minimum round trip time taken by a packet i.e. time to reach from source to destination and
give back the acknowledgement to source is by using EIGRP protocol while the smallest maximum round trip is
offered by OSPF and the smallest RTT average value is shown by ISIS. On analyzing all these values it is seen
that an overall round trip time taken by a packet in OSPF is better. Similarly, on analyzing time-to-live values,
the average time taken by a packet to travel from source to destination is least time in ISIS while RIP provides
the highest value.

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper comparison between RIP, EIGRP, OSPF and ISIS routing protocol is done on the basis of some
theoretical as well as practical parameters. After analyzing the output obtained on implementing these protocols
it can be concluded that in most of the cases OSPF & ISIS have more or less same performance, EIGRP have a
moderate performance while RIP has very poor performance as compared to all the three routing protocols.
In this thesis a comparison analysis on routing protocols is done on the basis of some parameters. In case
of future work, a research work can be done on comparing the end-to-end delay, queuing delay, jitter, etc. of
each protocol as well as the behavior of these protocols can be analyzed on a much bigger scenario or complicated
network. The security analysis for all these protocols can also be considered in future work.

REFERENCES
[1] Bhaskar verma, Ankur Dumka et. al. ,”Implementation and comparison of performance of various EGPs and IGPs with
traffic management”, Indiacom2015, second international IEEE conference (BVICAM), 11-13 march 2015.
[2] Ankur Dumka and Hardwari Lal Mandoria, “Layer 3 service implementation in different routers”, Indiacom2014, second
international IEEE conference,2014, pp-716-718.
[3] Syed YasirJalali, SufyanWani and Majid Derwesh, ‘Qualitative Analysis and Performance Evaluation of RIP, IGRP, OSPF
and EGRP Using OPNET™’, Advance in Electronic and Electric Engineering, 2014.
[4] Prachi Thakur and Yogesh Bansal “Survey of IP routing protocols”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
Science and Software Engineering, July 2014.
[5] Vishal Nigam, Md. SamilFarouqui and Gunjan Gandhi ‘Enhanced Comparative Study of Networking Routing Protocols’,
IJARCSSE, Feb 2014.
 Shailja Pant, and Ankur Dumka

[6] Jeevan Prasad Adhikari, ‘Performance Analysis of Protocols RIP & EIGRP using GNS3 Software’, International Journal of
Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, Apr 2013.
[7] Jagdeep Singh and Dr. Rajiv Mahajan, ‘Simulation Based Comparative Study of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP’, International
Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Aug 2013.
[8] Pankaj Rakheja, Prabhjotkaur, Anjali gupta and Aditi Sharma ‘Performance analysis of RIP, OSPF, IGRP and EIGRP Routing
Protocols in a Network’, International Journal of Computer Applications, June 2012.
[9] Oran Sharon “Dissemination of routing information in broadcast networks: OSPF versus IS-IS”, IEEE network, Jan/Feb
2001.
[10] GNS3Graphical Network Simulatorby Mike Fuszner.
[11] Rajender Kumar, Jitender Vats, Arvind Kumar “A comparative study of routing protocols”, (IJCSIT) International Journal of
Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 2 (5) , 2011.