TABLE OF CONTENTS

CANDIDATES DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CERTIFICATE
PREFACE

Chapter
No
1

Title

Page Nos.

Introduction
1.1

ii
iii
iv
v

Routing Protocol Overview

1.1.1 Link state routing protocol

1.1.2 Methods of routing

10

1.1.3 Properties of routing

10

1.1.4 Advantages and disadvantages of LSR

Open Shortest Path First

11
13

2.1

Advantages and Disadvanteges of OSPF

13

Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocols

14

3.1

Advantages and Disadvanteges of EIGRP

14

Literature survey

15

Problem

18

Objective

19

6.1
7

General Objectives

Methodology

20

7.1 Create Network Model

21

8
9
10
11
12
13

Performance matrices
OPNET

25
26

9.1 OPNET Features

Simulation Steps
Snapshots
Conclusion and Future scope
References

28
29
30
66
67

1. INTRODUCTION
Today internet has become integral part of our life. We are using many services like video
steaming, email and file transfer. These are all based on packet data and routing protocol
has important role to deliver packet across the internet. There are many protocols existing
in ip network. We have taken OSPF and RIP protocols and analysis which one is better
for ip network. in this project we will analysis that which one protocol is better with
respective application like video, e-mail, Database and Http. Routing protocols specify
how routers communicate with each other by disseminating information. The router has
prior knowledge about the adjacent networks which can assist in selecting the routes
between two nodes. There are different types of routing protocols in the IP networks.
Three classes are common on IP networks as follows:
*

Interior gateway routing over link state routing protocols, such as IS-IS and OSPF.

Interior gateway routing over distance vector protocols, such as RIP, IGRP and
EIGRP.

Exterior gateway routing, such as BGP v4 routing protocol.

1.1 Routing Protocol Overview

In IP networks, the main task of a routing protocol is to carry packets forwarded from
one node to another. In a network, routing can be defined as transmitting information
from a source to a destination by hopping one-hop or multi hop. Routing protocols
should provide at least two facilities: selecting routes for different pairs of
source/destination

nodes

and,

successfully

transmitting

data

to

given

destination .Routing protocols are used to describe how routers communicate to each
other, learn available routes, build routing tables, make routing decisions and share
information among neighbours. Routers are used to connect multiple networks
and to provide packet forwarding for different types of networks.
The main objective of routing protocols is to determine the best path from a source
to a

destination. A routing algorithm uses different metrics based on a single or on

several properties of the path in order to determine the best way to reach a given

network. Conventional routing protocols used in interior gateway networks are

classified as Link State Routing Protocols and Distance Vector Routing Protocols.

1.1.1Link State Routing

Link State Routing (LSR) protocols are also known as Shortest Path First (SPF)
protocol where each router determines the shortest path to each network. In LSR,
each router maintains a database which is known as link state database.This database
describes the topology of AS. Exchange of routing information among the nodes is
done through the Link State Advertisements(LSA).
Each LSA of a node contains information of its neighbors and any
change (failure or addition

of link) in the link of the neighbors of a node is

communicated in the AS through LSAs by flooding. When LSAs are received, nodes
note the change and the routes are recomputed accordingly and resend through LSAs
to its neighbors. Therefore, all nodes have an identical database describing the
topology of the networks.
These databases contain information regarding the cost of each link in the
network from which a routing table is derived. This routing table describes the
destinations a node can forward packets to indicating the cost and the set of paths.
Hence, the paths described in the routing table are used to forward all the traffic to the
destination.
Dijkstras algorithm is used to calculate the cost and path for each link. The
cost of each link can also be represented as the weight or length of that link and is set
by the network operator. By suitably assigning link costs, it is possible to
achieve load balancing. If this is accomplished, congested links and inefficient usage
of the network resources can be avoided. Hence, for a network operator to change the
routing the only way is to change the link cost.Generally the weights are left to the
default values and it is recommended to assign the weight of a link as the inverse of
the links capacity. Since there is no simple way to modify the link weights so as to
optimize the routing in the network, finding the link weights is known to be NP-hard.

LSR protocols offer greater flexibility but are complex compared to DV protocols. A
better decision about routing is made by link state protocols and it also reduces
overall

broadcast traffic.

The most common types of LSR protocols are OSPF and IS-

IS. OSPF uses the link weight to determine the shortest path between nodes.

1.1.2

Methods of Routing

Every router will accomplish the following process [1].

Every router learns about directly connected networks to it and its

own links.

Every router must meet its directly connected neighbor networks. This
can be
done through HELLO packet exchanges.

Every router needs to send link state packets containing the state of the
links connected to it.

Every router stores the copy of link state packet received from its
neighbors.

Every router has a common view of the network topology and

independently determines the best path for that topology.
1.1.3 Properties of LSR

Each router maintains identical data.

Converges as fast as the database is updated.
Possibility of splitting large networks into sub areas.
Supports multIPle paths to destination.
Each router maintains the full graph by updating itself from other
routers.
Fast non loop convergence.

1.1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of LSR

In LSR protocols [4], routers compute routes independently and are not
dependent on the computation of intermediate routers. The main advantages of link
state routing protocols are:

React very fast to changes in connectivity.

The packet size sent in the network is very
small The main problems of link state

routing are:
Large amounts of memory requirements.
Much more complex.
Inefficient under mobility due to link changes.
Desirable Properties
To provide efficient and reliable routing, several desirable properties are
required
from the routing protocols:
*

Distributed Operation
The protocol should not depend on any centralized node for routing, i.e.,

distributed

operation. The main advantage of this approach is that in

such a network a link may fail anytime.

Loop Free

The routes provided by the routing protocol should guarantee a loop

free route. The advantage of loop free routes is that in these cases the
available bandwidth can be used efficiently.

Convergence

The protocol should converge very fast, i.e., the time taken for all the
routers in the network to know about routing specific information
should be small.

Demand Based Operation

The protocol should be reactive, i.e., the protocol should provide

routing only when the node demands saving thus valuable network
resources.

Security

The protocol should ensure that data will be transmitted securely

to a given destination.

MultIPle Routes

The routing protocol should maintain multIPle routes. If a link fails or

congestion occurs then the routing can be done through the multIPle routes
available in the routing table saving thus valuable time for discovering a new
route

2.Open Shortest Path First

Open Shortest Path first (OSPF) is a link state routing protocol that was initially
developed in 1987 by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) working group of OSPF
[17]. In RFC 1131, the OSPFv1 specification was published in1989. The second
version of OSPF was released in 1998 and published in RFC2328 [18]. The third
version of OSPF was published in 1999 and mainly aimed to support IPv6. OSPF is an
interior gateway protocol(IGP) for routing Internet Protocol(IP) packets solely within a
single routing domain, such as an autonomous system. It gathers link state information
from available routers and constructs a topology map of the network. The topology is
presented as a routing table to the Internet Layer which routes datagrams based on the
destination IP address found in IP packets. OSPF supports Internet Protocol Version 4
(IPv4) and Internet Protocol Version 6(IPv6) OSPF detects changes in the topology, such
as link failures, and converges on a new loop-free routing structure within seconds. It

computes the shortest path tree for each route using a method based on Dijkstra's
algorithm, a shortest path first algorithm.

2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of OSPF

The advantages of OSPF are:

OSPF is not a Cisco proprietary protocol.

OSPF always determine the loop free routes.
Low bandwidth utilization.
If any changes occur in the network it updates fast. .
Multiple routes are supported.
It is suitable for large network.

Disadvantages of OSPF are:

Difficult to configure.
Link state scaling problem.
More memory requirements

3. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocols

Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocols (EIGRP) is a CISCO proprietary
protocol and it is an enhancement of the interior gateway routing protocol (IGRP).
EIGRP was released in 1992 as a more scalable protocol for medium and large scale
networks. It is a widely used interior gateway routing protocol which uses Diffusion
Update Algorithm (DUAL) for computation of routes. EIGRP is also known as
hybrid protocol because it has the properties of a link state protocol for creating
neighbour relationships and of a distance vector routing protocol for advertisement of
routes.

3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of EIGRP

There are some advantages provides by EIGRP as follows:
Easy to configure.
Loop free routes are offered.
It keeps a back up path in the network to get the destination.
Multiple network layer protocols are included
Disadvantages of EIGRP are:
Considered as Cisco proprietary routing protocol.
Routers from other vendors are not able to utilize EIGRP.

4.Literature Survey:
we have got through seven different papers thoroughly which we thought can help us
to reach up to specific conclusion. all the papers were having great research. in these
papers we have concluded

that a dynamic routing protocol is responsible for path

determination, routing updates and choosing the best path in a network (host node to
destination node). performance analysis of different routing protocols has been done
based on different performance metrics. In the paper titled.
in the paper titled simulation based EIGRP over OSPF performance analysis EIGRP
and OSPF routing protocols have been taken and performance of protocols is checked by

performance metric like convergence time, jitter, end to end delay, throughput, packet
loss. the evaluation results show that EIGRP routing protocols provides a better
performance than OSPF routing protocol for real time video application and voice
application.
in the paper titled performance comparison of EIGRP and IS-IS/RIP protocols
EIGRP and combination of IS-IS/RIP protocols have been taken and performance of
protocol is checked by performance metric like terms of convergence time, throughput
and end-to-end delay. the evaluation results show that the combination of IS-IS/RIP
protocol shows better performance compared to EIGRP protocol in terms of throughput
and end-to-end delay. whereas, the network convergence of EIGRP protocol is better than
IS-IS/RIP protocol.
in the paper titled a comparative study of IS-IS and IGRP protocols for real- time
application based on opnet IS-IS and IGRP routing protocols have been taken and
performance of protocols is checked by performance metric like convergence duration
time, throughput, packet delay variation, packet end-to-end delay and traffic sent the
evaluation results show that show that the best results in the combination of two protocols
of IGRP and IS-IS, achieved in traffic sent and received for videoconferencing,
throughput, jitter, packet delay variation for voice and convergence activity time
parameters. whereas, packet end-to-end delay and packet delay variation for
videoconferencing of IS-IS protocol is better than IS-IS/IGRP protocol.in the paper
titled simulation based performance analyses on RIPv2,EIGRP, and OSPF using opnet
RIPv2 , EIGRP, and OSPF routing protocols have been taken . and performance of
protocols is checked by performance metric like convergence time, scalability, end-to-end
delay, and throughput the evaluation results show that show that RIPv2 has better
performance than others in small and condensed networks. OSPFand EIGRP have better
performance for medium-sized and scattered networks. overall EIGRP is more stable and
consistent in both small and relatively large networks. in the paper titled final project
OSPF, EIGRP and RIP peformance analysis based on opnet EIGRP , OSPF and RIP
protocols have been taken and performance of protocols is checked by performance

metric like network convergence, ethernet delay, email upload response time, http page
response time, video conferencing packet end-to-end delay, voice packet delay the
evaluation results show . that EIGRP compared to RIP and OSPF performs better in terms
of network convergence activity and routing protocol traffic and ethernet delay. OSPF
performs better in terms of http page response time and video conferencing packet endto-end delay. RIP performs better in terms of voice packet delay.
in the paper titled performance comparison of EIGRP/ IS-IS and OSPF/ IS-IS
EIGRP , OSPF and IS-IS protocols have been taken and performance of protocols is
checked by performance metrics like throughput, http object response time, database
response time and e-mail download response time. the evaluation results show that IS-IS
convergence time in EIGRP/IS-IS network is much faster than OSPF/IS-IS . in the
comparison of these protocols in database query response time, EIGRP/IS-IS shows a
better database query response time than of the other protocols at the whole time. the
EIGRP/IS-IS protocol performs very well in email download performance metric for the
whole simulation time. in the http page response time IS-IS become better than other
protocols.
in the paper titled Performance analysis of OSPF and EIGRP routing protocols for
greener internetworking. in this paper EIGRP and OSPF routing protocols have been
taken and performance of protocols is checked by performance metric like convergence
time, jitter, end to end delay, throughput, packet loss. the evaluation results show that
EIGRP routing protocols provides a better performance than OSPF routing protocol for
real time application.in the paper titled Analysis of the Routing Protocols in Real Time
Transmission: A Comparative Study. in this paper

RIP, OSPF, IGRP, and EIGRP

routing protocols have been taken and performance of protocols is checked by

performance metric like

packets dropping, traffic received, End-to-End delay, and

variation in delay (jitter).. the evaluation results show IGRP performs the best in packets
dropping, traffic received, and End-to-End delay as compared to its other companions
(RIP, OSPF, and EIGRP), while in case of jitter, RIP performs well comparatively.in the
paper titled Performance Comparison of Two Dynamic Routing Protocols: RIP and
OSPF. in this paper RIP and OSPF routing protocols have been taken and performance

of protocols is checked by performance metric like throughput, packet delay and packet
loss. the evaluation results show

OSPF has a better performance than RIP in terms of

average throughput and packet delay in different network sizes, while RIP is better than
OSPF in terms of number of packet loss in large networks.
in the paper titled International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science
and Software Engineering. in this paper EIGRP ,RIP and OSPF routing protocols have
been taken and performance of protocols is checked by performance metric like
Response time, Throughput, Point to Point utilization and queuing delay. the evaluation
results show that EIGRP protocol behaves well in terms of point-to-point link utilization,
throughput, Queuing delay and HTTP page response time but by considering other
important network parameters, it performs poor for Email download and upload response
time and DB query response time. While RIP performs well where EIGRP performs poor.
On the other hand OSPF and combination of OSPF, RIP and EIGRP are moderate in all
cases.In the paper titled Performance Analysis of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms over
MPLS. in this The main objective of this research is to rank the aforementioned IPv6
transition mechanism and identify the superior mechanism(s) that offer lowest delay,
lowest jitter, and highest throughput by performance metric like end-to-end delay, jitter,
and throughput performance metrics using tunneling mechanisms, specifically Manual
Tunnel, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Tunnel, Automatic IPv4-Compatible
Tunnel, and 6to4 Tunnel between Customer Edge (CE)-to-CE routers and between
Provider Edge (PE)-to-PE routers . the evaluation results show that Dual Stack has the
best overall performance metrics with the lowest delay, lowest jitter, and highest
throughput, followed by 6PE; Native IPv6; Manual PE-to-PE and Automatic PE-to-PE;
Manual CE-to-CE, Automatic CE-to-CE, 6to4 PE-to-PE, and GRE PE-to-PE; 6to4 CEto-CE; and GRE CE-to-CE .in the paper titled Performance Comparison of Mixed
Protocols Based on EIGRP, IS-IS and OSPF for Real-time Applications . in this paper
EIGRP ,IS-IS and OSPF routing protocols have been taken and performance of protocols
is checked by performance metric like end-to-end delay, packet delay variation, Voice
Jitter and Link throughput. The evaluation results show that OSPF/IS-IS scenario has

minimal convergence time whereas EIGRP/IS-IS/OSPF has minimum Packet delay

variation, packet End to End delay, Voice Jitter and link Throughput.

5. Problem:
The objective for this project is to evaluate proposed routing protocols for IP networks
based on performance. There are many routing protocols exist IP network .but question
is which one can give us better response with different

performance metric .This

evaluation should be done theoretically and through simulation to know the better results.
So that we can fulfill our motive with simulation results. In detail we have to collect
results in which Each protocols show the performs in graphical manner. On the behalf of
those results we can analysis the overall performs of the protocols. There are many server
exist in the networking terms .like

DATA BASE SERVER

VIDEO SERVER
Voice SERVER
E-mail SERVER
HTTP SERVER

.on the behalf of that server we can check its performance metric. we can check the
performance matrix like

DATA BASE QUERY RESPONSETIME

END TO END DELAY IN VIDEO
END TO END DELAY IN VOICE
E-mail UPLOAD /DOWNLOAD RESPONSE TIME
PAGE RESPONSE TIME
OVERALL THROUGHPUT

But we dont know which protocol give us better results with this performance matrix. so
for this purpose we create the network with different protocols. After that we can choose
the performance matrix according to requirement.