Second International Conference on Computer and Network Technology
Dynamic Routing Protocol implementation decision
between EIGRP, OSPF and RIP based on Technical
Background Using OPNET Modeler
Sheela Ganesh Thorenoor
Consultant, Wipro Technologies
Bangalore, India
e-mail:sheela.ganesh@wipro.com
Abstract— This paper presents the implementation decisions
to be made when the choice is between protocols that involve
distance vector or link state or the combination of both. Here a
comparison is made between different parameters and a
detailed simulation study is performed on the network with
different routing protocols and it has been shown that EIGRP
provides a better network convergence time, less bandwidth
requirements and better CPU and memory utilization
compared to OSPF and RIP.
EIGRP, OSPF and RIP are the dynamic routing protocols
being used in the practical networks to propagate network
topology information to the neighboring routers. There have
been a large number of static and dynamic routing protocols
available but choice of the right protocol for routing is
dependent on many parameters critical being network
convergence time, scalability, memory and CPU requirements,
security and bandwidth requirement etc.
Keywords-EIGRP, OSPF, RIP, Dynamic Routing Protocol,
Network Convergence, CPU Utilization, OPNET
I. INTRODUCTION
In practical networks which are very large, internet
service providers rely on dynamic routing protocols to keep
the routing tables updated. The network based on TCP/IP
protocol permits the efficient routing of data packets based
on their IP address. Routers are used in the network to
control and forward data.
In the packetized communication of information, the
function of routing is moving traffic across networks and the
routers should be aware of where they should forward the
traffic next in order to reach the final destination. In order
for routers to effectively and efficiently distribute data, the
choice of the routing protocol becomes very critical factor to
define the success of the network over time. Factors that
differentiate one routing protocol from another include the
speed that it adapts to topology changes called as
convergence, the ability to choose the best route among
multiple routes and the amount of network traffic that the
routing protocol creates. In addition, choosing between
standard and proprietary protocols, ease of administration,
978-0-7695-4042-9/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICCNT.2010.66
CPU and memory utilization and security all contribute to
the decision complexity.
II. DYNAMIC ROUTING PROTOCOLS
A. Dynamic Routing Protocols
The chief advantage of dynamic routing over static
routing are scalability and adaptability [1]. A dynamically
routed network can grow more quickly and larger, and is
able to adapt to changes in the network topology brought
about by this growth or by the failure of one or more network
components.
With a dynamic routing protocol, routers learn about the
network topology by communicating with other routers.
Each router announces its presence, and the routes it has
available, to the other routers on the network. Therefore, if a
new router or an additional segment is added to an existing
router, the other routers will learn about the addition and
adjust their routing tables accordingly. The ability to learn
about changes to the network's configuration has
implications beyond adding new segments or moving old
ones [2]. It also means that the network can adjust to failures.
If a network has redundant paths, then a partial network
failure appears to the routers as if some segments got moved
and some segments have been removed from the network. In
short, there's no real difference between a network failure
and a configuration change. Dynamic routing allows the
network to continue functioning, in a degraded fashion,
when a partial failure occurs.
The terms distance vector and link state are used to group
routing protocols based on whether the routing protocol
selects the best routing path based on a distance metric and
an interface, or selects the best routing path by calculating
the state of each link in a path and finding the path that has
the lowest total metric to reach the destination [3]. Distance
vector protocols use a distance calculation plus an outgoing
network interface to choose the best path to a destination
network. Routers that use distance vector routing share
information or a routing map with other routers on the
network. When a change in the network occurs, the router
with the change propagates the new routing information to
all neighbouring routers. Each recipient on this information
adds a distance vector to the routing table before it forwards
it on to its neighbours. Link State protocols track the status
191
and connection type of each link and produces a calculated
metric based on these and other factors, including some set
by the network administrator. In link state routing the best
route for data is calculated based on cost and once the
network is converged, protocol traffic is limited to changes
in specific links.
B. Routing Information Protocol
RIP is a dynamic, distance vector routing which RIP
uses UDP port 520 for route updates. RIP calculates the best
route based on hop count. Like all distance vector routing
protocols, RIP takes some time to converge. RIP requires
less CPU power and RAM than some other routing
protocols and since RIP calculates the best route to a
destination based solely on how many hops it is to the
destination network, RIP tends to be inefficient in network
using more than one LAN protocol. This is because RIP
prefers paths with the shortest hop count. The path with the
shortest hop count might be over the slowest link in the
network.
An update process that enables each router to tell other
routers which route is the fastest from its point of view, and
an update algorithm that enables each router to update its
database with the fastest route is communicated from
neighboring routers. RIP is the only routing protocol that all
routing devices and software support, so in a mixed
equipment environment, RIP could be an option for
dynamic routing.
C. Open Shortest Path First
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is a particularly
efficient interior gateway routing protocol that is faster than
RIP, but also more complex[4]. . The main difference
between OSPF and RIP is that RIP only keeps track of the
closest router for each destination address, while OSPF
keeps track of a complete topological database of all
connections in the local network. When a router is turned
on it sends Hello packets to all of its neighbors, receives
their Hello packets in return, and establishes routing
connections by synchronizing databases with adjacent
routers that agree to synchronize. At regular intervals each
router sends an update message called its "link state"
describing its routing database to all the other routers, so
that all routers have the same description of the topology of
the local network. Each router then calculates a
mathematical data structure called a "shortest path tree" that
describes the shortest path to each destination address and
therefore indicates the closest router to send to for each
communication. The number of calculations that must be
performed given n link state packets is proportional to n log
n because of which performance problems increase with
routing protocol recalculation.
D. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol
EIGRP is described as a hybrid protocol, since it
displays characteristics of both a distance vector and link
state protocol.
192
EIGRP uses the metrics like bandwidth, delay,
reliability, load, and MTU in making its routing decisions .
The default metrics used are bandwidth and delay. For a
more granular level of control, EIGRP multiplies each of the
metrics by 256 before performing the calculation of the
composite metric. EIGRP has been designed to make much
better use of bandwidth, and to allow routers to have a much
better awareness of neighboring routers.
Instead of sending its entire routing table out at regular
intervals, an EIGRP router sends out only partial updates,
and even then, only when a route changes. This makes a
better use of the available network bandwidth. An EIGRP
router also has a more complete view of the network than a
typical distance vector protocol as it not only maintains its
own routing table, but also keeps a copy of the routing
tables of neighboring routers. When an EIGRP router cannot
find a route to a network based on all the information it
currently has, it sends out a query to other routers, which is
propagated until a route is found.
III. SIMULATION
A. Simulation Methodology
Network is simulated using OPNET® Modeler.
OPNET® is extensive and powerful simulation software
with wide variety of capabilities. It enables the possibility to
simulate entire heterogeneous networks with various
protocols.
The simulated network for RIP as shown in the fig.1,
consists of different sites located across different states
within US. Each of the location in turn consists of routers,
the local network with servers and other end terminals as
shown in fig.2 at Houston. The end terminals are connected
to the router through 100Mbps Ethernet links and the
routers in turn are connected through OC 1 and OC 12 links
based on the traffic requirements. The network shown below
represents a baseline scenario, in which the routers are not
configured for any routing protocols.
Fig. 1: Network topology for RIP
 Fig.2: LAN network setup with router at Houston
The same network topology shown in fig.1 is configured
for RIP, OSPF and EIGRP protocols as shown in fig.3, 4
and 5 respectively.
Fig.3 Network topology with routers configured for RIP
Fig.4: Network topology with routers configured for OSPF
193
Fig.5: Network topology with routers configured for EIGRP
A. Application and Ping Configuration
An application configuration is used in all the scenarios
to configure the traffic application parameter. The
corresponding terminals at different locations are
configured with suitable servers and client applications.
B. Application and Ping Configuration
An application configuration is used in all the scenarios
to configure the traffic application parameter. The
corresponding terminals at different locations are
configured with suitable servers and client applications.
Fig. 6: Application Configuration for traffic generation
IV. NETWORK ANALYSIS
We have first built the network with RIP as the routing
protocol and the same model is repeated for analysis as a
second and third scenarios using OSPF and EIGRP as
routing protocols. In order to analyse the network in terms
of network convergence activity, network convergence time,
CPU utilization, throughput, queuing delay and network
bandwidth utilization, the global, node and link statistics
are to be chosen. In the three different scenarios, RIP,
OSPF and EIGRP are chosen under global, node and link A. Network Convergence Activity: It is lowest for
statistics as shown in the figures 7, 8 and 9. EIGRP compared to OSPF and RIP.

Fig. 10: Network Convergence Activity

Fig. 7: Global statistics parameters chosen for RIP, OSPF and EIGRP
B. Network Convergence Duration: For EIGRP network
convergence time is the lowest.

Fig.8: Node statistics parameters chosen for RIP, OSPF and EIGRP

Fig. 11: Network Convergence Duration

C. Routing traffic: OSPF protocol provides higher traffic

compared to EIGRP.

Fig. 9: Link statistics parameters chosen for RIP, OSPF and EIGRP

The simulation is done as the Discrete Event Simulation,

in which case the kernel mode is chosen to be under
“optimized” and the simulation duration is for one hour.
The results obtained as shown in the following graphs Fig. 12: Routing Protocol Traffic
plotted.

194
 D. CPU Utilization: EIGRP provides lower CPU G. Queuing Delay: EIGRP provides lesser queuing delay
requirements compared to OSPF. compared to OSPF.

Fig. 13: CPU Utilization

Fig. 16: Queuing Delay

E. Network Bandwidth Utilization: OSPF provider higher

network bandwidth utilization compared to EIGRP. V. CONCLUSIONS

It can be seen that EIGRP compared to RIP and OSPF

definitely performes better compared to RIP and OSPF in
terms of:
a) Network convergence activity
b) Network convergence duration
c) Routing protocol traffic
d) CPU utilization
e) Network bandwidth utilization
f) throughput and queuing delay

EIGRP which has the features of both link state and

Fig. 14: Network Bandwidth Utilization
F. Throughput: EIGRP shows better throughput curve
compared to OSPF.
distance vector protocol therefore provides improved
memory and CPU utilization, intelligent bandwidth control
by taking into consideration the available bandwidth when
determining the rate at which it will transmit updates. It
does not require a hierarchical network design to operate
efficiently and has greater control on timing issues. EIGRP
can be implemented to provide functionality as well as
stabilization and will be easy to maintain the network.

VI. REFERENCES
.

[1] http://oreilly.com
[2] http://www.freesoft.org
[3] http://www.inetdaemon.com
[4] http://www.livinginternet.com
[5] State Models for Internetworking Technologies, S P Maj, G.Murphy,
G Kohli
[6] Route Creation Influence on DMVPN QoS by Ruta Jankuniene, Jeva
Janknaite, Dept of Telecommunications, Kauns University of Technology
[7] http://www.oggnet.com
Fig. 15: Throughput

195