Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in University Network

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 3 Issue 5, August 2019 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD26582 | Volume – 3 | Issue – 5 | July - August 2019 Page 1240
Performance Evaluation of
Routing Protocols in University Network
Kyaw Zay Oo
Lecturer, Department of Information Technology, Technological University, Mandalay, Myanmar
How to cite this paper: Kyaw Zay Oo
"Performance Evaluation of Routing
Protocols in University Network"
Published in
InternationalJournal
of Trend in Scientific
Research and
Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-
6470, Volume-3 |
Issue-5, August
2019, pp.1240-1244,
https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd26582
Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and
International Journalof Trendin Scientific
Research and Development Journal. This
is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of
the Creative
CommonsAttribution
License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
/4.0)
ABSTRACT
In an enterprise network, multiple dynamic routing protocols are used for
forwarding packets with the best routes. Therefore, performance of the
network is based on routing protocols and the route redistribution is an
important issue in an enterprise network thathasbeenconfiguredbymultiple
different routing protocols in its routers. So, aim ofthesystemistoanalyzethe
performance and comparison of different Interior Gateway routing protocols.
Routing is depended on many parameters critical such as network
convergence time, Ethernet delay, throughput, end-to-end delay, jitter, packet
delivery, security and bandwidth, etc. In this paper, the analysis of
characteristics and the performance of the different routing protocols as
Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and
Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) are evaluated in a
university network. The performance evaluation are based on end to end
packet delay, network convergence time, packet delay variation and
administrative distance, etc. The analysis focuses on the performance of the
routing protocols with its routingtableinasimulator.TheSimulationsoftware
can be used to evaluate and compare theperformanceof theroutingprotocols.
The simulator return the routing tableforeach nodeorrouterintheuniversity
network which would contain the best pathtoreach theremotedestinationon
the metric chosen based on the routing protocol implemented. Thesimulation
software give results used to evaluate the performance of routing protocols,
the performance of different routing protocols will be compared, and to
analyze the convergencetimeand administrativedistanceof routingprotocols.
KEYWORDS: dynamic routing protocol, RIP, OSPF, EIGRP
I. INTRODUCTION
For a packet to travel from source to destination it has to
pass through multiple paths or sometimes a single path. So
when a packet finds multiple paths to reach the destination,
it has no judging methods availabletorightpath.Therouting
algorithms can be used by routing protocols. Routing
algorithms are responsible for selecting the bestpathforthe
communication a border way, a routing protocol is the
language a router speaks with other routers in order to
share information about the reach ability and status of
network. A routing protocol is a protocol that specifies how
routers communicate with each other, disseminating
information that enable them to select routes between any
two nodes on a computer network. The working of router is
controlled by using routing protocols. Routing is often
contrasted with bridging. The primary difference between
both of them are the layer in which theyareworking.Metrics
such as path bandwidth, reliability, delay, current load on
that path etc. are used by routing algorithms to determine
the optimal path to a destination. The routing is proceeding
in such a way that first it shares information with its
immediate neighbors, then thorough outtheentirenetwork.
The routing is established by the configuration of routing
tables in the routers. There are two different way to
configure routing tables in router. They are static routing
and dynamic routing. Static routing is simply the process of
manually entering routes into the routing table of a device
using it’s a configuration file that is loaded when the routing
devices starts up. In static routing, all the changes in the
logical network layout need to be manually done by the
system administrator. However, dynamic routing allows
routers to select the best path when there is a real time
logical network layout change. Static routing is easy to
implement in small networks. They are very safe and
predictable as the route to the destination is always the
remains same. Any require routing algorithm or update
mechanisms does not required.
But dynamic routing protocols work well and suitable in all
topologies where multiples routers are required. They are
scalable and automaticallydeterminebetterroutesif thereis
a dynamic routing the better choice for medium, large and
very large inter network. The dynamic routing protocol is
further classified into distance vector routing protocol and
link state routing protocol. Distance vector protocol uses
simple algorithms to calculate cumulative distance value
between routers based on hop count. But link state routing
protocols uses sophisticated algorithm that maintain
complex data base of inter network topology.
II. RELATED WORK
Sandeep Kumar Sahoo has analyzed the performance of
routing protocols using OPNET and GNS3 simulators. The
work focuses on the analysis of the routing protocols in a
simulator and analysis of the routing table. The work also is
IJTSRD26582

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
to design a simulator that can find the best path to a given
topology. The simulators returned the routing table foreach
node or router in the network which would contain the best
path to reach the remote destination on the metric chosen
based on the routing protocol implemented. The analysis of
routing protocols is done on these two simulators. This
paper is the result of the thorough understanding of the use
of the two simulators and the routing protocols [4].
Archival Sebial andChrisJordan performed on corroborating
the simulated performances of the RIP, EIGRP and OSPF
routing protocols to actual operations. Simulation was
employed with the use of a packet tracer and authenticated
to real time situation with the use of hyper terminal
emulator. Sub netting was also utilized to address and
relieve network congestion and security in both
environments. In the conduct of the study, results on
performances in both simulation and real time situation
have been the same. Both yielded same performance results
as long as parameters are set consistently. The simulation
process had been validated by the actual setup. Based from
the results, the author concludes that simulation is
consistent with the real time scenario. Results in simulation
are generally accurate, time effort and cost efficient [1].
III. ROUTING PROTOCOLS
Routing protocols specifies how routers communicate with
each other. A routing protocol shares this information first
among immediate neighbor and then throughout the
network. The specific characteristics of routing protocols
include the manner in which they avoid routing loops, the
manner in which they select preferred routes, using
information about hop costs, the time that require to reach
routing convergence, scalability and other factors [2].
A. Classification of Dynamic Routing Protocols
The classification of routing protocol is shown in figure 1.
Figure1. Classification of Dynamic Routing Protocols
B. Routing Algorithms
Routing Algorithm is a method for determine the routing of
packets in a node. For each node of a network, the algorithm
determines a routing table, which in each destination,
matches an output line. The algorithms should lead to a
consistent routing, that is to say without loop. This means
that should not route a packet a node to another node that
could send back the package. In dynamic routing protocols,
most of the routing algorithms are possible to be classified
like one of two basic algorithms such as Distance Vector and
Link State.
C. Distance Vector characteristics
1. The routing by distance vector collects data of the
information of the routing table of its neighbors.
2. The routing by distance vector determines the best
route adding the metric value that receives as the
routing information happens from router to another
one.
3. With most of the protocols of routing by distance
vector, the updates for the change of topology
consist of periodic updates of the tables. The
information happens from router to another one,
giving generally like result one more a slower
convergence.
RIP and EIGRP are examples of distance vector routing
protocols [5].
D. Link State characteristics
1. In the link state routing, each router works
independently to calculate its own shorter route
towards the networks destiny.
2. With the protocols of routing of connection state,
the updates are caused generally by changes in the
topology.
3. The relatively small LSA that have gone to all the
others routers generally give like result faster times
of convergence with any change of topology of the
internetwork.
OSPF is an example of link state routing protocol [5].
E. Routing Information Protocol (RIP)
RIP, a distant vector routing protocol, is one of the most
commonly used routing protocols for small homogeneous
networks. As a distance-vector routing protocol, RIP is used
by routers to exchange topology information periodicallyby
sending out routing table details to neighboring routers
every 30 seconds. Theseneighboringroutersinturnforward
the information to other routers until they reach network
convergence. RIP uses the hop count metric with the
maximum limit of 15 hops anything beyond that is
unreachable. Because of this RIP is not suitable for large,
complex networks [3].
F. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
OSPF, a link - state routing protocol, is used in large
organizations for Autonomous System (AS) networks. OSPF
gathers link state information from available routers and
determines the routing table informationtoforwardpackets
to base on the destination IP address. Thisoccursbycreating
a topology map for the network. Any change in the link is
immediately detected and theinformationisforwardedtoall
other routers, meaning they also havethesame routingtable
information. Unlike RIP, OSPF only multicasts routing
information when there is a change in the network. OSPF is
used in complex networks that are subdivided to ease
network administration and optimize traffic. It quickly
calculates the shortest path if topology changes, using
minimum network traffic. OSPF allows network admin to
assign cost metrics for a particular router sothatsomepaths
are given higher preference. OSPF also provides an
additional level of routing protection capabilityensuresthat
all routing and protocol exchange are authenticated [3].
G. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol
(EIGRP)
EIGRP, a distance vector routing protocol,exchangesrouting
table information with neighboring routers in an

autonomous system. Unlike RIP, EIGRP shares routing table
information that is not available in the neighboring routers,
thereby reducing unwanted traffic transmitted through
routers. EIGRP is an enhanced version of IGRP and uses
Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL), which reduces the time
taken for network convergence and improves operational
efficiency. Enhanced IGRP stores all its neighbors’ routing
tables so that it can quickly adapt to alternate routes. If no
appropriate route exists, Enhanced IGRP queries its
neighbors to discover an alternate route. These queries
propagate until an alternate route is found,thisfeaturegives
EIGRP the ability to handle the topology changes as fast as
possible, and provide much faster convergence. Enhanced
IGRP does not make periodic updates. Instead, it sends
partial updates only when the metric for a route changes.
Propagation of partial updates is automatically bounded so
that only those routers that need the information are
updated. As a result of these twocapabilities,Enhanced IGRP
consumes significantly less bandwidth [3].
IV. THE PROPOSED NETWORK
For the design of the network, the universitynetwork willbe
used in the proposed network.Itshouldbetakeneach router
is set for a particular department. There are six engineering
departments. These are Information Technology, Electrical
Power Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Mechatronic
Engineering, ArchitectureEngineeringand CivilEngineering.
Each department belong to a separate two Virtual LAN,
VLAN. The total number of routers used in the design of the
university network is six numbers. The address space on
router on R1 refers to Information Technology Department,
R2 refers to Electrical Power Engineering Department, R3
refers to Electronic Engineering Department, R4 refers to
Mechatronic Engineering Department, R5 refers to
Architecture Engineering Department, and R6 refers to Civil
Engineering Department. The design of the university
network is shown in Figure 1.
Figure1. Design of the University Network
The university IP network will be using the Variable Length Subnet Masks, VLSM with RIP, OSPF and EIGRP protocols. The
principle of using VLSM is dividing an IP address space into ahierarchyof subnetsof differentsizes,makingitpossibletocreate
subnets with very different host counts without wasting largenumbersofaddresses. In thisnetwork design,routingtableinsix
routers are analyzed. The routers are connected to each other by fast Ethernet ports that through one router is connected to
another router. There are three routing protocols RIP, OSPF and EIGRP has been respectively implemented for each scenario.
V. COMPARISON OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS
The comparative analysis of the features of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP routing protocols are described in the table 1.
Table1. Comparison of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP
Feature
Routing Protocols
RIPv2 OSPF EIGRP
Type Distance Vector Link State Hybrid
Algorithm Bellman-Ford Dijkstra Dual
Class full/ Class less Class less Class less Class less
Metric Hop Count Cost Bandwidth/ Delay
Timers Update 30sec Network change occurs Network change occurs
Administrative distance 120 110 Internal 90/ External 170
Authentication Yes MD5 MD5
Hop limit 15 No limit 255
Convergence Slow Fast Very fast
Types of Updates Full table Only changes Only changes
Support VLSM Yes Yes Yes
Network Size Small Large Large

VI. SIMULATION RESULTS
This section presents the results that obtained from the simulations of the three scenariosin theproposed universitynetwork.
Therefore, the simulation results of the proposed scenarios are compared and analyzed to make a decision of the appropriate
routing protocol.
A. Result of Convergence Time
The convergence time of a network is very essential to a network. Networks that convergence faster are considered tobevery
reliable. Users of the network appreciate it when they are always able to access resources. This thesis was carried out to
compare the convergence of three routing protocol. The following tables, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Figure 2 are result of
convergence time measurement of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP respectively in routers.
Table2. Convergence Time of RIP in Routers
Test Start Time R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Convergence Time
1 04:26 04:40 04:40 04:38 04:39 04:39 04:40 14
2 05:20 05:29 05:29 05:30 05:29 05:30 05:33 13
3 05:40 05:48 05:48 05:50 05:48 05:50 05:53 13
4 07:20 07:34 07:34 07:28 07:30 07:30 07:34 14
5 07:45 07:55 07:58 07:59 07:59 07:58 07:58 14
Average Time 14
Table3. Convergence Time of OSPF in Routers
1 01:00 01:11 01:11 01:10 01:10 01:11 01:11 11
2 02:00 02:10 02:10 02:10 02:09 02:10 02:10 10
3 02:30 02:40 02:36 02:39 02:40 02:40 02:40 10
4 03:00 03:11 03:10 03:11 03:11 03:11 03:11 11
5 03:20 03:30 03:31 03:31 03:31 03:30 03:31 11
Average Time 11
Table4. Convergence Time of EIGRP in Routers
1 02:00 02:05 02:04 02:05 02:05 02:04 02:04 5
2 02:20 02:24 02:25 02:25 02:25 02:25 02:25 5
3 02:30 02:36 02:36 02:36 02:36 02:36 02:36 6
4 03:00 03:04 03:05 03:05 03:05 03:04 03:05 5
5 03:10 03:15 03:15 03:15 03:15 03:14 03:15 5
Average Time 5
Figure2. Performance Base on Convergence Times
B. Result of Administrative Distance
Each routing protocol has its own administrative distance (AD). If a router learns adestination routefromtwoor morerouting
protocols, it selects the route from the protocol having the smallest administrative distance. The following Figure 3, Figure 4,
Figure 5 and Figure 6 are result of administrative distance of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP respectively in routers.Astheresult,theAD
value of RIP is 120, OSPF is 110, and EIGRP is 90.

Figure3. Routing Table of RIP in Router R1
Figure4. Routing Table of OSPF in Router R1
Figure5. Routing Table of EIGRP in Router R1
Figure6. Performance Base on Administrative Distance
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The university network is demonstrated using the cisco
packet tracer simulatorwith routingprotocols.RIPhasmany
limitations, it generates high traffic that can cause a
congestion in slow networks, administrative distance is 120
and it maximum hop count is 15 hop, that limits the use of
RIP in a small fast networks. RIP will be really bad choice in
slow networks. The performance of RIP can be improved
using the triggered extension mode, which decrease the
traffic generated by the RIP, enabling the auto summary will
also decrease the traffic generated by the RIP. OSPF has a
short convergence time, administrative distance is 110 and
have no limit maximum hop count; it can be perform
efficiently in small and large networks that use routers from
other manufacturers other than CISCO systems. From the
simulation results, the EIGRP give the best performance
when compared with RIPandOSPF. EIGRP generatetheleast
traffic, least administrative distanceandthusit willconsume
the least bandwidth, leaving enough bandwidth for
transmission of data. EIGRP also hasthebestperformancein
the case of topology changes; it has the least dropped traffic
compared to the other distance vector routing protocols. So
EIGRP should totally replace IGRP. But EIGRP is a CISCO
proprietary protocol, which means that it can only be used
on CISCO products.
The main goals of any routing protocol are to achieve fast
convergence, while remaining simple, flexible, accurate and
robust. In this paper, would compare analyze the
convergence times and administrative distance of these
three routing protocols.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is deeply grateful to Dr. Moe Moe Aye, Professor
and Head of Department of Information Technology,
Technological University (Mandalay) for her willingness to
share her ideas helpful suggestions and all teachers for
providing the opportunity to embark on this paper writing.
REFERENCES
[1] Archival Sebial, Chris Jordan, “Routing Protocols with
Subnetting Implementation to Actual Operation using
Hyper Terminal Emulator”, ISSN 1818-4952, 2017.
[2] Kamal Grover, Palak Bansal, Ranjan Venkatachala
Shetty. “Comparison of Routing Protocols RIP, OSPF,
EIGRP” International Journal of Application or
Innovation in Engineering and Management, February
2017.
[3] Mr.R. Jayaprakash, Ms.K.Saroja. “RIP, OSPF, EIGRP
ROUTING PROTOCOLS” International Journal of
Research in Computer Application and Robotics, ISSN
2320-7345, July 2015.
[4] Sandeep Kumar Sahoo. “Analysis of Routing Protocols
for a wired network” (Dept. of Computer Science and
Engineering); National Institute of technology
Rourkela, Rourkela-769008 Odisha, India, 2014.
[5] N.Nazumudeen, C.Mahendran, “Performance Analysis
of Dynamic Routing Protocols Using Packet Tracer”
International Conference on Engineering Technology
and Science-(ICETS’14), Volume 3, Special Issue 1,
February 2014.
[6] Su Nandar, “Simulation and Analysis of Routing
Protocols on University Network” Graduated Thesis,
October 2018.

Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in University Network

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in University Network (20)

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols in University Network