Performance Analysis and Route Optimization: Redistribution between EIGRP, OSPF & BGP Routing Protocols

Journal Pre-proof

Performance Analysis and Route Optimization: Redistribution between EIGRP, OSPF & BGP Routing Protocols Atif Manzoor , Muzammil Hussain , Sobia Mehrban PII: DOI: Reference:

S0920-5489(19)30099-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2019.103391 CSI 103391

To appear in:

Computer Standards & Interfaces

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

23 March 2019 6 July 2019 6 November 2019

Please cite this article as: Atif Manzoor , Muzammil Hussain , Sobia Mehrban , Performance Analysis and Route Optimization: Redistribution between EIGRP, OSPF & BGP Routing Protocols, Computer Standards & Interfaces (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2019.103391

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Highlights  This research article focuses on the performance and redistribution of different routing protocols in medium or enterprise IP networks.  A simulated network model is established in GNS3 simulator. Five Cisco-7200 series routers are used in this simulated topology.  Three protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP are used in this topology and then configured route redistribution on these routers.  Different types of data traffic are generated and passed through the network in order to analyze network convergence, throughput and packet delay by the use of software wire shark network analyzer and debug command.  EIGRP is better in convergence and through put whereas OSPF is better in packet delay.

Performance Analysis and Route Optimization: Redistribution between EIGRP, OSPF & BGP Routing Protocols Atif Manzoor1, Muzammil Hussain1, Sobia Mehrban1 1

Department of Computer Science, School of Systems and Technology, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

ABSTRACT Routing is the process of data path selection of IP networks. Routers perform path selection of the basis of routing tables stored in their memory. Routing table contains IP routes for route transformation via the best path in the networks. Service providers use different routing protocols in their enterprise networks. These routing-protocols have the limitation of non-convergence in the networks. Route redistribution is the technique which overcomes this limitation. Due to this technique, service providers can get optimized communication with IP networks where multiple routing protocols are being used. This research article focuses on the performance and redistribution of different routing protocols in medium or enterprise IP networks. A simulated network model is established in GNS3 simulator. Five Cisco-7200 series routers and a switch is used in this simulated topology. All these routers are directly connected with each other via serial links. Routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP are used in this topology and then configured route redistribution on these routers. Different types of data traffic are generated and passed through the network in order to analyze network convergence, throughput and packet delay by the use of software wire shark network analyzer and debug command. EIGRP is better in convergence and through put whereas OSPF is better in packet delay. Keywords: - Routing protocol, EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, Redistribution, Administrative Distance, Convergence, Packet Delay, Throughput.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Routing is the exchanging process of data packets between different IP networks. This is twoway process, performed intelligently on basis of the best available paths between sources to destination. To recognize the best route to each connected network, different routing protocols are used and are entered to the routing tables of each router. Two routing schemes, static routing, and dynamic routing are used. Static is manual routing whereas dynamic routing is associated with routing protocols. The dynamic-routing-protocols enable routers to converge the networks in case of any topology change in which routers relearn the new routing information by

exchanging new topology information with each other [1]. Dynamic protocols enable routers to find alternate routes in case link failure in the running network. Less administrative overhead is compulsory in dynamic-routing protocols as associated to static-routing protocols however dynamic-routing protocols are classier towards router’s resources in terms of processor operations and bandwidth utilization. Different routing protocols are perfect in different situations even use of static routing cannot be ousted from the marathon [2]. Figure 1 shows the taxonomy of dynamic-routing protocols.

Figure 1: Dynamic Routing Protocol Stack

These routing protocols are being evolved and optimized for many decades. The game on dynamic-routing protocols was started in 1980’s where the first version of Routing-InformationProtocol (RIP) released in 1988. As long as new demands arise, networks develop more complex so new protocols were evolved to address new challenges to complex networks. RIPv2 was released as in advancement of RIPv1. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate SystemIntermediate-System (IS-IS) routing protocols released to meet complex needs. The cisco released its proprietary protocols Interior-Gateway-Routing Protocol (IGRP) and then Extended IGRP (EIGRP) to accomplish with emerging needs in complex enterprise networks [3]. Routers in the same instance (Routers running similar routing protocols) fully exchange their route information to make the network converged, however, the routers running different

instances are unable to exchange routing information by default. Figure 2 shows the details of enterprise network configured with different routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF, and IBGP [3].

Figure 2: Enterprise Network Configured with EIGRP, OSPF and iBGP Routing Instances

The routers in EIGRP instance have no perceptibility of addresses in OSPF instance and routers in OSPF instance have no perceptibility of addresses in BGP instance. In the other words, each router in EIGRP instance cannot get updated for any router in OSPF and BGP instances and same in case of OSPF and BGP routers instances. This creates the issue of non-convergence in networks. In order to allow routers to exchange routing data between different routing instances, the feature of route redistribution was introduced in routers OS. Route redistribution is the configuration that allows routers to learn the addresses of those routers that are in dissimilar routing instances. For example, R4 will learn the routing information of OSPF instance and R5 will learn routing information of EIGRP instance and vice versa whereas R8 will learn routing information of BGP instance and R9 will learn routing information of OSPF instance. In addition to the value of exchanging of routing information between dissimilar instances, route redistribution helps in route backup. In the case of network failure redistribution provides alternative forwarding path and other routers must adopt the topology. Suppose, if the link among R1 and R2 disconnect, there is still path available for R1 to reach R4 and further to R8 and R12 etc. [3]. II.

RELATED WORK

A wide range of research and surveys have been done related performance of routing protocols and enterprise networking. The mainstream of current research has been based on the performance and efficiency of core routing. According to the research work of Golap and coauthors related to performance analysis of RIPV2, EIGRP and OSPF. Simulation topology built up on eight routers and a switch on GNS3 software. After configurations and comparison research found that EIGRP is better in performance as compare to RIPv2 and OSPF. RIPV2 is better in small network and OSPF is better in large network [1].

Another research on routing protocols between EIGRP, RIP and OSPF using OPNET simulation software and equipment has been conducted. Primary objective of the research is to compare the convergence duration between these routing protocols. Among different findings the most significant and superior convergence of EIGRP as compared to RIP and OSPF [4]. In research work of Anibrika Bright for performance analysis between EIGRP and OSPF for real time applications using OPNET simulation. Different metrics have been used to find out the better performance of routing protocols. After complete evaluation on the basis of metrics that EIGRP is better in performance for real time applications [7]. Dynamic protocols also enable routers to fine alternate routes in case link failure in the running network. Administrative-overhead must be fewer in dynamic-routing protocols as parallel to static-routing protocols however dynamic-routing protocols are more expensive towards router’s resources in the terms of processor operations and bandwidth utilization. Different routing protocols are perfect in different situations even use of static routing cannot be ousted from the marathon [8]. Chandrasekaran, S. S compared several models of traffic in his research to be used in the virtual environment of data center. Different network topologies have been introduced in the past to improve the Data center networks to avoid different metrics i.e. latency, delay, and Jitter for the efficient and reliable network.

Core routers and switches play a vital role in enterprise

networking for efficiency and throughput of the network. Different routing protocols (RIP, OSPF, and BGP) are usually configured for the communication in the different autonomous system. Then Data Center replicated performance and traffic generated by data center enumerated in relations of metrics (i.e. throughput, latency, and power consumption). Particular research is focused on to quantify the performance of Data Center Network and generate traffic using simulated DCN similar to actual Data Center traffic. Poisson Shot-Noise Process is used for data flow arrival. The related characteristics have mathematically modeled was implemented in MATLAB. Mostly fat-tree topology is used in Data Center Network. Servers are connected in a hierarchy with all layers access, aggregated and core. Switches are also acted like a gateway for the external network connectivity [14]. Research work conducted by Alabady, S. A and co-authors for performance analysis of dynamic routing protocols for sustainability and reliability. The performance evaluation conducted

between EIGRP, OSPF and RIP. A Network topology based on 25 routers built using Packet Tracer simulation software and configured EIGRP, OSPF and RIP on all routers. The main purpose of the research is to find out the performance of routing protocols in large network and under the hardest situation. After complete evaluation authors found that OSPF has faster convergence as compared to RIP and EIGRP [15]. The authors [16] investigate the performance evaluation of IPV4 and IPV6 using different parameters including size of packet, routing protocols (RIP, EORGP and OSPF), and distance among routers. A virtual network established in GNS3 simulation software to evaluate the performance. All the parameters put together in same time to evaluate the performance of IPV4 and IPV6. After complete testing the results shows that IPV6 is better as compare to IPV4. III.

ROUTING PROTOCOLS OVERVIEW

Three routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP have been used in this research article. Here is brief discussion on these protocols. EIGRP: - Enhance- Interior Gateway Routing Protocol is Cisco’s propriety routing-protocol use Diffusing-Update Algorithm (DUAL). It is known as hybrid protocol as it has features of both Distance-Vector and Link-State routing protocols family having recessive compatibility with IGRP routing protocol. It checks any routing changes periodically, if it founds any routing update, it propagates to neighboring routers rather than sending the whole routing table. It minimizes the bandwidth utilization between routers. It uses six metrics from which it uses four metrics to calculate composite metric. [4]. OSPF: - Open Shortest Path First is open source routing protocol that is link-state in routing algorithm. It uses Dijkstra’s algorithm or SPF (Shortest Path First) algorithm to compute shortest path of each route. It uses area to build its topology. Area is logical arrangement of OSPF network area where it resides. These routers have not information about any device reside in other areas. All areas are connected to backbone area to make whole topology of OSPF network. This characteristic reduces the database of routing table. It uses bandwidth as metric to calculate the cost of the link. BGP: - Border Routing Protocol is exterior gateway routing protocol used to communicate between different AS numbers in large networks like ISP’s. It resides in the family of PathVector Routing protocols. BGP further referred to iBGP used in the same AS whereas eBGP is

used in different AS. BGP makes the routing decisions on the basis of paths attributes. These attributes are weight, local preference, AS path, Origin and MED [5]. There are a number of other parameters related to routing protocols that is given in table 1. Table 1: Routing Protocol Comparison

PROPERTY

EIGRP

OSPF

BGP

AD

Int – 90 Ext 170

110

EBGP - 20 IBGP - 200

Technique

Distance Vector

Link state

Path vector

Summarization

Auto/Manual

Manual

Auto/Manual

Network Size

Large

Large

Very large

Mixed-Vendor

No

Yes

Yes

Metric

BW+ Delay

Cost

IBGP – 0

Routing Metric: - Based on metric value, routers make routing decisions. Metric value is determined by routing algorithm to calculate optimal path for network traffic [10]. These metrics are assigned to different paths present in the routing table and are calculated based on different parameters. These parameters are  Hop count  Path Speed  Path reliability  Load  Bandwidth  Latency  MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) Both EIGRP and OSPF calculates their metrics on basis of any of these parameters whereas BGP determines its best path based on its path attributes like weight, AS_path, local_preference and Origin and multi_exit_discriminator. i. EIGRP Routing Metric (Bandwidth, Delay, Reliability, Load) EIGRP has five parameters (BW, delay, load, and reliability) to calculate its composite routing metric. The least value of composite routing matric is being used in routing decisions in EIGRP. It uses only bandwidth & delay as default. EIGRP take an account of hope-count even though it does not include hope-count in calculation of its composite metric (Cisco). EIGRP calculates its

metric based on five composites (K’s). K1= Bandwidth, K2= Load, K3= Delay, K4= Reliability, K5= MTU. It also weighs these Ks as follows. K1=K3=1 and K2=K4=K5=0 The Formula:-

Route Metric = 256 x [K1xBandwidth + (K2xBandwidth)/ (256 – Load) + K3xDelay] x [K5/(K4+Reliability)]

Considering default values of Ks as discussed earlier, the above formula reduced to following equation [1][6][7]. Route Metric = 256*(Bandwidth + Delay) ii.

OSPF Routing Metric– (Path Cost)

OSPF calculates its metric based on cost of the path. Least path cost will be chosen as metric in OSPF routing algorithm. Cost is inversely proportional to bandwidth. It means higher the bandwidth, lesser will be path cost and vice versa. The Formula: -

Cost = 108 /Bandwidth

Here, bandwidth is in bits-per-second and 108 are 100000000 in bits per second. It is default value [1][2]. iii. BGP Path Attributes: The best path algorithm in BGP works based on its path attributes [5]. Each path attribute is associated with a specific value. Only one path attribute will be considered at one time. The path attribute algorithm works as follows.  Prefer path with highest WEIGHT. It is Cisco proprietary parameter which is local to routers on which WEIGHT is assigned.  Prefer path with highest LOCAL_PREFERENCE. It is set 100 by default however it is customized.  Prefer path that is locally ORIGINATED. Local paths are by default preferred.  Prefer the path with shortest AS_PATH  Prefer eBGP over iBGP.  Prefer the path with lowest MED if same AS_PATH is available.  Chose the path with oldest route.  Prefer the path with least router ID. To ensure load balance over multiple path_attributes, BGP is provided by entering maximumpaths followed by number-of-paths in router while configuring BGP. Maximum of six path_attributes can be handled by BGP [5]. IV.

SIMULATION / IMPLEMENTATION

A lab to demonstrate the procedure of redistribution is configured in GNS3. GNS3 is a networking emulator used to virtual and real devices. Five Cisco routers of 7200 are used in this simulated LAB as given in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Simulated Topology

EIGRP uses hello packets to make neighborship. EIGRP send hello packets after every 5 seconds in LAN and 60 seconds in case of WAN. The multicast address used by EIGRP to send hello messages is 224.0.0.10 [11] After giving the #Network 1.0.0.0 command under the #Router EIGRP 1 on both routers R1 and R2 a neighborship has been configured. In EIGRP1, 1 is the autonomous system number which should be same on both of neighbor routers, on router 2, three static null routes have been configured i.e. 192.168.1.0, 192.168.2.0 and 192.168.3.0 as the static null routes are external to the EIGRP network so these routes will not be advertised by the R2 using EIGRP to R1 the only way to advertise these routes to R1 is redistribution [7]. So, the command #redistribute EIGRP static 1 1 1 1 1 is used to redistribute these routes into EIGRP domain. These redistributed routes have been shown on R1 with DEX, DEX is the redistributed routes in the EIGRP domain, the routes which are not redistributed in EIGRP domain but advertise by EIGRP using # network command are shown with D. All external routes of EIGRP is shown in table 2. R1# Show IP route Table 2: Redistributed External Routes in EIGRP

In the next step OSPF has been configured between R2 and R3. The command #network 2.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 area 0 is used under the #Router OSPF1, where 1 is the process_id which may not be same on both routers. In the #network 2.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 command 0.0.0.0 is the wild card mask that is used to match the exact network bits that have been advertised to R3. #network 2.1.1.2 0.0.0.0 area 0 command is used on the other end of R2 to make neighborship. After these steps hello messages are exchanged between R2 and R3. Area 0 is backbone network; in OSPF every area needs to be connected to the backbone area to exchange the topology. OSPF advertise routes are not shown in the EIGRP network without redistribution [7]. # redistribute OSPF 1 command under the #router EIGRP 1 is used to advertise OSPF routes in EIGRP instance. These routes are shown with DEX in the routing table of R1, Similarly EIGRP routes are not shown on the routing table of R3 so to redistribute EIGRP routes into the OSPF instance under the #router OSPF 1, then #redistribute EIGRP 1 command has been configured. External redistributed routes in the OSPF instance are shown with OE2, OSPF routes are advertised with the administrative distance of 110 as shown in given routing table 3 [6][7] Table 3: Redistributed External Routes in OSPF

In the third step, EBGP has been configured between R3 and R4, EBGP is used between different AS Numbers. In EBGP neighborship has been configured using the #neighbor 3.1.1.2 remote AS 200 command under the #router BGP 100 command. In router BGP 100 command 100 is the autonomous number, auto summary is by default enable the BGP so to disable automatic summary #no autosummary command has been used. BGP use AD 20 to advertise routes between the different AS Numbers and AD of 200 is used in same AS is default. After entering the neighbor command BGP send keepalive messages to the neighbor, BGP send keepalive messages after every 60 seconds so its hold-down time is 180 seconds. OSPF routes are not being shown in the routing table of R4 so under the # router BGP 1 command #redistribute OSPF 1 metric 300 matches internal external 1 external 2 commands has been used on router R3. Now BGP routes are shown on the routing table of R4 with B, B word shows that these are now the BGP routes [8][13]. In the last step IBGP has been configured between R4 and R5, #router BGP 200, under this command #neighbor 4.1.1.2 remote AS 200 has been used, As this is IBGP so same AS Number has been used on both of routers and now the routes are advertised with the AD of 200, at this point no redistribute command is needed to advertise EBGP or OSPF routes into the iBGP domain these are being advertised automatically [8]. External routes of BGP have been shown in table 4. Table 4: Redistributed External Routes in BGP

I.

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Considering above simulated topology, three parameters have been selected on three protocols i.e. Convergence, Throughput and Packet delay. Two tools Wireshark and Debug Command have been used to calculate the metric values, these methods are given. i. Debug output for Hello intervals Debug is the command used on cisco routers to check the flow of packets in the running environment; this command is used for the troubleshooting purpose, in this scenario Hello packet intervals will be calculated using the debug output of EIGRP, OSPF and BGP, The command used for EIGRP, OSPF and BGP for the debugging of Hellos is as follows. #debug eigrp packets hello ack #debug ip ospf hello #debug ip bgp keepalive ii. Wireshark Output Wireshark is the tool used to analyze the real-time performance of the network, In this scenario Wireshark has been integrated with the GNS3 to calculate the Hello, Throughput and Packet delay values, In the outputs given the first column shows the serial numbers , second column

shows the Time intervals , third column represent the source of packet , fourth column represent the destination of the packet fifth column represents the protocol used by the packet, sixth column represents the length of packets and the last column represent the information carried by the packet either it is hello packets, TCP, UDP of any other kind of information [9]. 1. Convergence The consistency of routing tables in all routers is called convergence. A converged network is the network having complete routing information with respect to all routes in the network. Convergence time is the time required by routers to learn the routing information of other routers along with calculation of best paths. Faster the convergence, mean lesser convergence time. Faster convergence leads optimal working of routing-protocols in the network [1][2][4]. Hello packets are used to maintain the neighborship between peer routers. In this scenario, Hello packets timers are used to check the convergence time of EIGRP, OSPF and BGP. Debug time is used to check the hello intervals between these 3 routers. Table 5 shows convergence values of these three protocols computed using debug and Wireshark. Table 5: Convergence comparison

Protocol

Convergence Time (Seconds)

EIGRP

9

OSPF

30

BGP

180

EIGRP timers have been shown via Debug Command on R1 in the Figure 4. In EIGRP, #debug EIGRP packets hell ACK is the command used to check the hello intervals, In the above snapshot of hellos it has seen that EIGRP send hello to its neighbor 1.1..1.2 on serial interface 1/0 , First hello packet is send at the time 13:36:28 and the next Hello is sent to the neighbor at 13:36:33 and the third Hello at the same interface is sending at 13:36:37 so the difference in Hello intervals is 3 seconds on every interval.

Figure 4: Debug output of EIGRP Hello

In the Figure 5 Wireshark output of Hello packets it has seen that the first Hello send by the source 1.1.1.1 to the destination of multicast 224.0.0.10 at the time 7.23900 and the second Hello time is 11.69700 so the difference in hello intervals by the same source to the same destination is 3 so 3*3=9 seconds taken by EIGRP for the convergence.

Figure 5: Wireshark output of EIGRP Hello

OSPF timers have been shown via Debug Command on R2 in the Figure 6. Figure 6 of OSPF debug output shows that the first Hello send by the source 2.1.1.1 to the destination multicast 224.0.0.5 at the time 13:43:45 and the second Hello send by the same source 2.1.1.1. At the time 13:43:55, so the difference in intervals is 10 seconds.

Figure 6: Debug Output of OSPF Hello

In Figure7 Wireshark output of OSPF Hellos shows that the first Hello send by the source 2.1.1.1 at the time 60.028000 and the second Hello time by the same source is 70.032000 so the difference in interval is 10 seconds, so the total of 3 Hellos time period is 3*10=30 seconds.

Figure 7: Wireshark output of OSPF Hello

In Figure 8 BGP send Keepalive packets instead of Hellos, in the above output of Keepalive it has shown that the first Keepalive message has sent to the destination 3.1.1.2 at 13:48:28 and the seconds Hello has been sent at the time 13:49:28 so the difference in intervals is 60 seconds.

Figure 8: Debug output of BGP Keepalive

Figure 9 shows wireshark output of Hellos, the first Keepalive send by source 3.1.1.1 at time 31.73000 and the second packet send by the same source at the time 91.542000 so the difference in interval is 60 seconds, BGP converge after Hellos so it took total 3*60=180 seconds to converge.

Figure 9: Wireshark output of BGP Keepalive

The results show that EIGRP has better convergence time then OSPF and BGP. EIGRP send hello packets every 3 seconds in the LAN environment where as OSPF send hello packets after every 10 seconds and BGP send Hello after 60 seconds which create too much delay in the convergence of BGP.

2. Throughput Throughput is the successful message delivery over the network rather than it is wired or wireless. Throughput is generally calculated bit per second or can be customized as the rate of data packets per given time slot [4][6]. Given table 6 shows throughput values of these three protocols computed using Wireshark. Table 6: Throughput Comparison

Protocol

Throughput(millisecs)

EIGRP

0.015

OSPF

0.093

BGP

0.047

Given tables 7, 8, and 9 are the Wireshark outputs which used to calculate the final Throughput Table 7: Wireshark output of EIGRP Throughput

Throughput is measured in this case by sending a ping to the destination ip as throughput is echo request/ echo reply, Output shows that ICMP packets has been sent from source 1.1.1.1 to the destination 1.1.1.2 at the time 8.78800 and the reply send by 1.1.1.2 to 1.1.1.1 at 8.804000 so the difference between reply and request packet time is 0.015 milliseconds. Table 8: Wireshark output of OSPF Throughput

OSPF throughput shows that the ICMP packet send by 2.1.1.1 to the destination 2.1.1.2 at the time 13.718000 and reply it has received at 13.811000 so the difference in time is 0.093 milliseconds. Table 9: Wireshark output of BGP Throughput

Table 8 BGP out shows that 3.1.1.1 send ICMP packet to 3.1.1.2 at time 20.851000 and the reply it has received at 20.898000 and the calculated difference is 0.047 milliseconds. 3. Packet Delay Packet is how long it takes a data unit to travel from source to destination. Table 9 shows values of packet delay of three protocols computed using debug and Wireshark. Table 10: Packet Delay Comparison

Protocol

Packet Delay (milloseconds)

EIGRP

0.028

OSPF

0.010

BGP

0.017

The packet delay of these three protocols has been calculated by using Wireshark as given in table 11, 12, and 13. Table 11: Wireshark output of EIGRP packet delay

For the calculation of packet delay telnet packets has been sent from the source 1.1.1.1 to the destination 1.1.1.2 at time period 29.363000 and the reply it has received at the time period 29.391000 so the difference in interval is 0.028 milliseconds. Table 12: Wireshark output of OSPF packet delay

Wireshark output of OSPF packet shows that the ICMP packet send by the source 2.1.1.1 to the destination 2.1.1.2 at time 17.37000 and the second packet send at time 17.38000 so the calculated packet delay is 0.010 milliseconds. Table 13: Wireshark output of BGP Packet Delay

BGP output of Wireshark shows that the ICMP packet send by the source 3.1.1.1 to the destination 3.1.1.2 is at time 18.429000 and the reply it has received at 18.446000 so the difference in intervals is 0.017 milliseconds. V.

GRAPHICAL VIEW OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Complete performance analysis of routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP by using different metrics, Convergence, Throughput and Packet Delay has been represented in Figure 10.

Convergence Output of EIGRP,OSPF,BGP (Time in Seconds) 200 150 100 50 0 Convergence EIGRP

OSPF

BGP

Figure 10: Convergence Output of EIGRP, OSPF, BGP

Above figure represent convergence time in seconds of all three routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP. EIGRP has 9 seconds convergence time, OSPF has 30 seconds convergence time and BGP has 180 seconds convergence time. So according to convergence output, EIGRP routing protocol performance is faster as compare to OSPF and BGP protocols.

Throughput output of EIGRP,OSPF,BGP (Time in MilliSeconds) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Throughput EIGRP

OSPF

BGP

Figure 11: Throughput output of EIGRP, OSPF, BGP

Figure 11 represents Throughput time in milliseconds of all three routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP. EIGRP has 0.015 seconds Throughput time, OSPF has 0.093 seconds Throughput time and BGP has 0.047 seconds Throughput time. So according to Throughput output, EIGRP routing protocol performance is faster as compare to OSPF and BGP protocols.

Packet Delay output EIGRP,OSPF,BGP (Time in MilliSeconds) 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Packet Delay EIGRP

OSPF

BGP

Figure 12: Packet Delay output EIGRP, OSPF, BGP

Figure 12 represents Packet Delay time in milliseconds of all three routing protocols EIGRP, OSPF and BGP. EIGRP has 0.028 seconds Packet Delay time, OSPF has 0.010 seconds Packet Delay time and BGP has 0.017 seconds Packet Delay time. So according to Packet Delay output, OSPF routing protocol performance is faster as compare to EIGRP and BGP protocols VI.

CONCLUSION

In the Networking environment there are multiple routing protocols like RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, and ISIS have been used. Each protocol has its own pros and cons, EIGRP is a cisco

propriety protocol whereas OSPF and BGP are open vendor protocols. EIGRP and OSPF are used the scenarios where there is single Autonomous has been used on the other hand BGP is used to communicate different AS number, EIGRP is used in the small environment but OSPF is much more scalable, There are multiple differences between these routing tables each has its own benefits but Convergence, Throughput, and Packet Delay metrics are considered to calculate performance of these routing protocols. The routing between EIGRP, OSPF, and BGP has been configured on network topology design in GNS3 simulation software and then configured redistribution on these instances. Different metrics (Convergence, Throughput, and Packet Delay) have been compared using debug command and Wireshark analyzer software and it has been observed that EIGRP is much quicker in convergence and took the least time to converge its topology change than OSPF and BGP. Then the second metric considered that is throughput. Throughput is the measure of response time that packets take from the source to the destination than the reply received by the source. According to results, EIGRP is quickest in terms of Throughput and received the reply in the least interval of time than both other protocols. At last, Packet delay has been analyzed using Wireshark it has been observed that OSPF has the least packet delay than EIGRP and BGP. In future work, comparison of routing protocols RIP, IS-IS will be deliberated. Load balancing and performance of routing protocols in hardest situation will be considered.

REFERENCES [1]

Dey, G. K., Ahmed, M. M., & Ahmmed, K. T. (2015, November). Performance analysis and redistribution among RIPv2, EIGRP & OSPF routing protocol. In 2015 International Conference on Computer and Information Engineering (ICCIE) (pp. 21-24). IEEE. [2] Jaswinder K., Samiksha, Susil, B., Karanjit, K., (2015, February) Route redistribution between EIGRP and OSPF routing protocol in Computer network using GNS3 software. In International Journal of Computer Networking, wireless and Mobile Communication (IJCNWMC), 2015. [3] Chapter 3 Introductions to Dynamic Routing Protocols: Retrieved on 11th Feb, 2019 from http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9781587132063/samplechapter/1587132060_03 .pdf [4] Sankar, D., & Lancaster, D. (2013). Routing Protocol Convergence Comparison using Simulation and Real Equipment. Advances in Communications, Computing, Networks and Security, 10, 186-194. [5] Configuring BGP, Cisco IOS IP Configuration Guide, Retrieved on 11th Feb, 2019 from http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/ip/configuration/guide/fipr_c/1cfbgp.pdf. [6] Albrightson, R., Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J. J., & Boyle, J. (1994). EIGRP--A fast routing protocol based on distance vectors. [7] Mohammed, M. A., Degadzor, A. F., & Asante, M. (2016). Performance Analysis of Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) Over Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Protocol with Opnet. [8] Asigbe, D. F., Mustapha, A. M., Agbesi, C. C., Ephraim, B. F., Bright, A. S., & Clement, S. (2016). Performance Analysis Of Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (Eigrp) Over Open Shortest Path First (Ospf) Protocol. International Journal Of Scientific & Technology Research (IJSTR), 5(9), 111-117. [9] Baba-Ali, A., Tabassum, M., & Mathew, K. Performance Analysis of Interior Gateway Routing Protocols across Different AS. [10] Thorenoor, S. G. (2010, April). Dynamic routing protocol implementation decision between EIGRP, OSPF and RIP based on technical background using OPNET modeler. In Computer and Network Technology (ICCNT), 2010 Second International Conference on (pp. 191-195). IEEE. [11] Le, F., Xie, G. G., & Zhang, H. (2007, October). Understanding route redistribution. In Network Protocols, 2007. ICNP 2007. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 81-92). IEEE. [12] Vissicchio, S., Vanbever, L., Cittadini, L., Xie, G. G., & Bonaventure, O. (2014, April). Safe routing reconfigurations with route redistribution. In INFOCOM, 2014 Proceedings IEEE (pp. 199-207). IEEE. [13] Wei, Z. Z., & Wang, F. (2011, June). Achieving resilient routing through redistributing routing protocols. In Communications (ICC), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE [14] Chandrasekaran, S. S. (2017). Understanding traffic characteristics in a server to server data center network. [15] Alabady, S. A., Hazim, S., & Amer, A. (2018). Performance Evaluation and Comparison of Dynamic Routing Protocols for Suitability and Reliability. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, 11(7), 41-52. [16] Samaan, S. S. (2018). Performance evaluation of RIPng, EIGRPv6 and OSPFv3 for real time applications. Journal of Engineering, 24(1), 111-122.

Conflicts of Interest Statement Manuscript title: Performance Analysis and Route Optimization: Redistribution between EIGRP, OSPF & BGP Routing Protocols The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have NO affi liations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any fi nancial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-fi nancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affi liations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Author names: Atif Manzoor, Muzammil Hussain, Sobia Mehrban