DOCSLIB.ORG

Performance Analysis of Route Redistribution Among Diverse Dynamic Routing Protocols Based on OPNET Simulation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Performance Analysis of Route Redistribution Among Diverse Dynamic Routing Protocols Based on OPNET Simulation (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2017 Performance Analysis of Route Redistribution among Diverse Dynamic Routing Protocols based on OPNET Simulation Zeyad Mohammad1 Adnan A. Hnaif3 Faculty of Science and Information Technology Faculty of Science and Information Technology Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan Amman, 11733 Jordan Amman, 11733 Jordan Ahmad Abusukhon2 Issa S. Al-Otoum4 Faculty of Science and Information Technology Faculty of Science and Information Technology Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan Amman, 11733 Jordan Amman, 11733 Jordan Abstract—Routing protocols are the fundamental block of information among autonomous system (AS) on the Internet. It selecting the optimal path from a source node to a destination is considered a distance vector routing protocol. An Interior node in internetwork. Due to emerge the large networks in Gateway Protocol is used to exchange routing information business aspect thus; they operate diverse routing protocols in between gateways within an AS. It consists of distance vector their infrastructure. In order to keep a large network connected; and link state routing protocols. A distance vector algorithm the implementation of the route redistribution is needed in builds a vector that contains costs to all other nodes and network routers. This paper creates the four scenarios on the distributes a vector to its neighbors. A link state algorithm in same network topology by using Optimized Network Engineering which each node finds out the state of the link to its neighbors Tools Modeler (OPNET 14.5) simulator in order to analyze the and the cost of each link. A distance vector routing protocol is performance of the route redistribution among three routing a hop count metrics and the next hop presents a direction. It is protocols by configuring three protocols from a set of Routing Information Protocol (RIPv2), Enhanced Interior Gateway based on Bellman Ford algorithm to calculate the optimal path. Routing Protocol (EIGRP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), RIP is a distance vector routing protocol that measures its and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) metrics by counting the number of hops between source and dynamic routing protocols on each scenario. The first scenario is destination. It selects the minimum number of hops for EIGRP_OSPF_ISIS, the second scenario is reaching a destination. RIP has three versions; this study will EIGRP_OSPF_RIPv2, the third scenario is RIPv2_EIGRP_ISIS, consider RIPv2 only in a simulation. EIGRP is a distance and the fourth scenario is RIPv2_OSPF_ISIS. The simulation vector routing protocol that it uses diffusion update algorithm results showed that the RIPv2_EIGRP_ISIS scenario to select the minimum cost between source and destination. A outperforms the other scenarios in terms of network convergence link state routing protocol is based on Dijkstra's algorithm to time, the hops number, jitter, packet delay variation, packet end find a shortest path between source and destination. OSPF and to end delay; therefore, it fits real time applications such as voice IS-IS are a link state routing protocol. The enterprise networks and video conferencing. In contrast, the EIGRP_OSPF_ISIS are created from numerous routers that are running diverse scenario has better results compared with other scenarios in routing protocols in order to exchange their route information; terms of response time in case of using web browsing, database the configuration of the route redistribution in routers are query, and Email services. needed. The route redistribution exchanges the route information between two different routing protocols that Keywords—route redistribution; dynamic routing protocols; requires a common border router. A common border router EIGRP; IS-IS; OSPF; RIPv2 runs routing processes in both routing protocols. The border I. INTRODUCTION router may be configured to redistribute routes from one routing protocol to the other, and vice versa. The route Nowadays, Internet has transformed the life style from a redistribution is needed in case of company mergers, multiple classical environment to a technology based one. Due to the departments managed by multiple network administrators, importance of routing protocols in Internet infrastructure, multi−vendor environment, and split of two independent several routing issues and requirements must be considered in a routing domains [1-2]. The route redistribution has two main network design phase. A Routing is a fundamental process for goals. The first goal is to advertise routing information between selecting optimal path from source to destination nodes. different routing protocols for connectivity purposes. The Routing protocols consist of interior and exterior gateway second goal is route back up in case of a network failure, protocols. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is an exterior routing protocol should support alternate forwarding paths to gateway protocol. BGP is designed to exchange routing each other. Moreover, most of existing solutions apply to 324 | P a g e www.ijacsa.thesai.org (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2017 scenarios with only two routing protocols, but large operational in section 4. The conclusion and future works are presented in networks usually include more than two routing protocols [3]. section 5. The route redistribution might raise issues during running II. RELATED WORKS multiple different routing protocols due to each routing protocol has its characteristics such as metrics, administrative Abdulkadhim analyzed the performance of EIGRP, OSPF distance, convergence rate, classful and classless capabilities. and RIP dynamic routing protocols in terms of the network Each routing protocol uses different metrics in order to convergence activity and time by using the OPNET simulator. calculate the optimal path. RIPv2 uses a hop count in its He showed that OSPF has faster convergence time than RIP, metric, and its administrative distance is 120, but EIGRP uses and OSPF convergence activity is much more than RIP, bandwidth, delay, reliability, load, and maximum transmission therefore, OSPF can react more quickly in case of link failure unit (MTU) in its metric, where bandwidth and delay are [7]. Kodzo et al. simulated EIGRP, OSPF and their default metric in EIGRP, and its administrative distance is 90 combination in OPNET. They analyzed the performance of [4]. OSPF metric is based on bandwidth, and its administrative EIGRP, OSPF and EIGRP_OSPF for real time application. distance is 110 , but IS-IS metric is based on cost of link They found that EIGRP_OSPF has less end to end delay, utilization, delay, expense and error, where Cisco packet delay variation and packet loss for real application than implementation uses cost only, and its administrative distance both EIGRP and OSPF, and the combination of EIGRP and is 115 [5-6]. OSPF has maximum throughput than EIGRP and OSPF [8]. Mardedi and Rosidi presented the analysis and comparison of Each routing protocol has a different network convergence performance between EIGRP and OSPF based on Cisco Packet time such as EIGRP convergence time is faster than RIP. A Tracer 6.0.1. They found that EIGRP is better than OSPF in network convergence is the status of a group of routers that terms of delay and convergence time [9]. Whitfield and Zhu have the same topological information about network in which compared the performance of OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 by using they work. When a link fails or recovers thereafter a set of real Cisco hardware in experiments. They noticed that routers needs to run their routing protocols in order to EIGPRv6 outperforms OSPFv3 in terms of start-up and re- exchange their routing information with neighbors to form the convergence speed but EIGRPv6 authentication mechanism same topological information about their network. negatively affected its performance, in contrast IP Security (IPSec) in OSPFv3 improved its performance [10]. Dey et al. Many researchers have analyzed and compared the presented a simulation based on Cisco Packet Tracer for performance of the link state and distance vector dynamic dynamic routing protocols and redistribution among the routing protocols, and the route redistribution between two protocols [11]. Patel et al analyzed the performance of OSPF diverse routing protocols [7-29]. In an enterprise network and EIGRP routing protocols in terms of route summarization might contain more than two diverse routing protocols in order and route redistribution in Graphical Network Simulator to operate. This study focuses on analyzing and comparing the (GNS3) [12]. Farhangi et al. presented the OPNET simulation performance of the route redistribution among three different based of a combination of EIGRP, OSPF and IS-IS routing routing protocols that operate in an enterprise network. This protocols in a semi-mesh topology. A simulation showed that paper creates the four scenarios on the OPNET 14.5 simulator the performance of the mixed three protocols EIGRP, OSPF in order to analyze the performance of diverse combinations of and IS-IS in terms of end to end delay, packet delay variation, different routing protocols that operate in the same network. Voice Jitter and Link throughput outperforms the other two The first scenario is named by EIGRP_OSPF_RIPv2 that is combination of the same three routing protocols [13]. Jalali et configured
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Safe Routing Reconfigurations with Route Redistribution
    Safe Routing Reconfigurations with Route Redistribution Stefano Vissicchio∗, Laurent Vanbevery, Luca Cittadiniz, Geoffrey G. Xiex, Olivier Bonaventure∗ ∗Universite´ catholique de Louvain, yPrinceton University, zRomaTre University, xNaval Postgraduate School Abstract—Simultaneously providing flexibility, evolvability operators can combine the advantages of different routing and correctness of routing is one of the basic and still unsolved protocols (or different configuration modes), e.g., optimizing problems in networking. Route redistribution provides a tool, one RD for scalability and another for fine-grained traffic used in many enterprise networks, to either partition a network engineering. into multiple routing domains or merge previously independent networks. However, no general technique exists for changing a live The division of an enterprise network in routing domains network’s route redistribution configuration without incurring is not static. Various events can force an enterprise network packet losses and service disruptions. operator to change the boundaries of its routing domains. In this paper, we study the problem of how to safely transition Splitting and merging networks, e.g., to accommodate mergers between route redistribution configurations. We investigate what and acquisitions, are two radical examples. Simply replacing anomalies may occur in the reconfiguration process, showing a router by another router from a different brand may also that many long-lasting forwarding loops can and do occur if force a boundary modification. Finally, the events can be naive techniques are applied. We devise new sufficient conditions driven by short-term objectives such as a change to the traffic for anomaly-free reconfigurations, and we leverage them to engineering requirements or router maintenance, as well as build provably safe and practical reconfiguration procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling Complexity of Enterprise Routing Design
    Modeling Complexity of Enterprise Routing Design Xin Sun Sanjay G. Rao Geoffrey G. Xie School of Computing and School of Electrical and Department of Computer Information Sciences Computer Engineering Science Florida International University Purdue University Naval Postgraduate School xinsun@cs.fiu.edu [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT to choose from [23]. Often, multiple designs exist to meet the same operational objectives, and some are significantly Enterprise networks often have complex routing designs given easier to implement and manage than others for a target net- the need to meet a wide set of resiliency, security and rout- work. For example in some cases, route redistribution may ing policies. In this paper, we take the position that minimiz- be a simpler alternative to BGP for connecting multiple rout- ing design complexity must be an explicit objective of rout- ing domains [16]. Lacking an analytical model to guide the ing design. We take a first step to this end by presenting a operators, the current routing design process is mostly ad systematic approach for modeling and reasoning about com- hoc, prone to creating designs more complex than necessary. plexity in enterprise routing design. We make three contri- butions. First, we present a framework for precisely defining In this paper, we seek to quantitatively model the com- objectives of routing design, and for reasoning about how a plexity associated with a routing design, with a view to de- combination of routing design primitives (e.g. routing in- veloping alternate routing designs that are less complex but stances, static routes, and route filters etc.) will meet the ob- meet the same set of operational objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Shedding Light on the Glue Logic of the Internet Routing Architecture
    Shedding Light on the Glue Logic of the Internet Routing Architecture Franck Le†, Geoffrey G. Xie‡,DanPei∗,JiaWang∗ and Hui Zhang† †Carnegie Mellon University, ‡Naval Postgraduate School, ∗AT&T Labs - Research ABSTRACT A BD Recent studies reveal that the routing structures of operational net- works are much more complex than a simple BGP/IGP hierarchy, Routing domain 1 (OSPF) Routing domain 2 highlighted by the presence of many distinct instances of routing CE(EIGRP 20) protocols. However, the glue (how routing protocol instances inter- act and exchange routes among themselves) is still little understood Routing domain 3 F or studied. For example, although Route Redistribution (RR), the (RIP) implementation of the glue in router software, has been used in the Internet for more than a decade, it was only recently shown G H that RR is extremely vulnerable to anomalies similar to the perma- nent route oscillations in BGP. This paper takes an important step toward understanding how RR is used and how fundamental the Figure 1: An example enterprise network. role RR plays in practice. We developed a complete model and associated tools for characterizing interconnections between rout- ing instances based on analysis of router configuration data. We are often linked together not by BGP. Instead, routes are exchanged analyzed and characterized the RR usage in more than 1600 opera- between different routing domains via route redistribution options tional networks. The findings are: (i) RR is indeed widely used; (ii) configured on individual border routers connecting these domains. operators use RR to achieve important design objectives not realiz- Figure 1 illustrates such a design.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Route Redistribution
    Understanding Route Redistribution Franck Le Geoffrey G. Xie Hui Zhang Carnegie Mellon University Naval Postgraduate School Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Route redistribution (RR) has become an integral option local to a router. It designates the dissemination of part of IP network design as the result of a growing need routing information from one protocol process to another for disseminating certain routes across routing protocol bound- within the same router. For routers in the RIP instance to learn aries. While RR is widely used and resembles BGP in several nontrivial aspects, surprisingly, the safety of RR has not been the prefixes in the OSPF instance, a router (e.g., D or E) needs systematically studied by the networking community. This paper to run both a process of RIP and a process of OSPF and inject presents the first analytical model for understanding the effect the OSPF routes into the RIP instance. of RR on network wide routing dynamics and evaluating the As such, router vendors introduced RR to address a need safety of a specific RR configuration. We first illustrate how from network operations. We recently looked at the configura- easily inaccurate configurations of RR may cause severe routing instabilities, including route oscillations and persistent routing tions of some large university campus networks and found that loops. At the same time, general observations regarding the root RR is indeed widely used. However, contrary to traditional causes of these instabilities are provided. We then introduce a routing protocols, there is no standard or RFC formally formal model based on the general observations to represent defining the functionality of RR.
    [Show full text]
  • IWAN) Direct Internet Access (DIA
    CISCO VALIDATED DESIGN IWAN Direct Internet Access Design Guide December 2016 REFERENCE NETWORK ARCHITECTURE Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Related Reading ...............................................................................................................................................................1 Technology Use Cases .....................................................................................................................................................1 Overview of Cisco IWAN and Secure DIA .......................................................................................................................4 Direct Internet Access Design ........................................................................................................ 10 Design Detail ................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Deploying Direct Internet Access ................................................................................................... 28 Using This Section ........................................................................................................................................................ 28 IWAN Single-Router Hybrid Remote Site with DIA .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Border Gateway Protocol, Route Manipulation, and IP Multicast
    C H A P T E R12 Border Gateway Protocol, Route Manipulation, and IP Multicast This chapter covers the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is used to exchange routes between autonomous systems. It is most frequently used between enterprises and service providers. The “Route Manipulation” section covers route summarization and redistribution of route information between routing protocols. The CCDA should know where redistribution occurs when required by the network design. This chapter also reviews policy-based routing (PBR) as a method to change the destination IP address based on policies. Finally, this chapter covers IP multicast protocols. “Do I Know This Already?” Quiz The purpose of the “Do I Know This Already?” quiz is to help you decide whether you need to read the entire chapter. If you intend to read the entire chapter, you do not necessarily need to answer these questions now. The eight-question quiz, derived from the major sections in the “Foundation Topics” portion of the chapter, helps you determine how to spend your limited study time. Table 12-1 outlines the major topics discussed in this chapter and the “Do I Know This Already?” quiz questions that correspond to those topics. Table 12-1 “Do I Know This Already?” Foundation Topics Section-to-Question Mapping Foundation Topics Section Questions Covered in This Section BGP 1, 2, 7, 8 Route Manipulation 3, 4 IP Multicast Review 5, 6 CAUTION The goal of self-assessment is to gauge your mastery of the topics in this chapter. If you do not know the answer to a question or you are only partially sure, you should mark this question wrong for the purposes of the self-assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Routing: Protocol-Independent Configuration Guide, Cisco IOS XE Release 3E
    IP Routing: Protocol-Independent Configuration Guide, Cisco IOS XE Release 3E Americas Headquarters Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706 USA http://www.cisco.com Tel: 408 526-4000 800 553-NETS (6387) Fax: 408 527-0883 THE SPECIFICATIONS AND INFORMATION REGARDING THE PRODUCTS IN THIS MANUAL ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. ALL STATEMENTS, INFORMATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS MANUAL ARE BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE BUT ARE PRESENTED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. USERS MUST TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR APPLICATION OF ANY PRODUCTS. THE SOFTWARE LICENSE AND LIMITED WARRANTY FOR THE ACCOMPANYING PRODUCT ARE SET FORTH IN THE INFORMATION PACKET THAT SHIPPED WITH THE PRODUCT AND ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY THIS REFERENCE. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE THE SOFTWARE LICENSE OR LIMITED WARRANTY, CONTACT YOUR CISCO REPRESENTATIVE FOR A COPY. The Cisco implementation of TCP header compression is an adaptation of a program developed by the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) as part of UCB's public domain version of the UNIX operating system. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1981, Regents of the University of California. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER WARRANTY HEREIN, ALL DOCUMENT FILES AND SOFTWARE OF THESE SUPPLIERS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS" WITH ALL FAULTS. CISCO AND THE ABOVE-NAMED SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE. IN NO EVENT SHALL CISCO OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS OR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO DATA ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THIS MANUAL, EVEN IF CISCO OR ITS SUPPLIERS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11: IGP Route Redistribution, Route Summarization, and Default Routing
    Blueprint topics covered in this chapter: This chapter covers the following topics from the Cisco CCIE Routing and Switching written exam blueprint: ■ IP Routing — OSPF — EIGRP — Route Filtering — RIPv2 — The use of show and debug commands C H A P T E R 11 IGP Route Redistribution, Route Summarization, and Default Routing This chapter covers several topics related to the use of multiple IGP routing protocols. IGPs can use default routes to pull packets toward a small set of routers, with those routers having learned routes from some external source. IGPs can use route summarization with a single routing protocol, but it is often used at redistribution points between IGPs as well. Finally, route redistribution by definition involves moving routes from one routing source to another. This chapter takes a look at each topic. “Do I Know This Already?” Quiz Table 11-1 outlines the major headings in this chapter and the corresponding “Do I Know This Already?” quiz questions. Table 11-1 “Do I Know This Already?” Foundation Topics Section-to-Question Mapping Foundation Topics Section Questions Covered in This Section Score Route Maps, Prefix Lists, and Administrative 1–2 Distance Route Redistribution 3–6 Route Summarization 7–8 Default Routes 9 Total Score In order to best use this pre-chapter assessment, remember to score yourself strictly. You can find the answers in Appendix A, “Answers to the ‘Do I Know This Already?’ Quizzes.” 314 Chapter 11: IGP Route Redistribution, Route Summarization, and Default Routing 1. A route map has several clauses. A route map’s first clause has a permit action configured.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Redistribution V1.14 – Aaron Balchunas 1
    Route Redistribution v1.14 – Aaron Balchunas 1 - Route Redistribution - Route Redistribution Basics It is preferable to employ a single routing protocol in an internetwork environment, for simplicity and ease of management. Unfortunately, this is not always possible, making multi-protocol environments common. Route Redistribution allows routes from one routing protocol to be advertised into another routing protocol. The routing protocol receiving these redistributed routes usually marks the routes as external. External routes are usually less preferred than locally-originated routes. At least one redistribution point needs to exist between the two routing domains. This device will actually run both routing protocols. Thus, to perform redistribution in the following example, RouterB would require at least one interface in both the EIGRP and the OSPF routing domains: It is possible to redistribute from one routing protocol to the same routing protocol, such as between two separate OSPF domains (distinguished by unique process ID’s ). Static routes and connected interfaces can be redistributed into a routing protocol as well. Routes will only be redistributed if they exist in the routing table. Routes that are simply in a topology database (for example, an EIGRP Feasible Successor), will never be redistributed. Routing metrics are a key consideration when performing route redistribution. With the exception of IGRP and EIGRP, each routing protocol utilizes a unique (and thus incompatible) metric. Routes redistributed from the injecting protocol must be manually (or globally) stamped with a metric that is understood by the receiving protocol. (Reference: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/redist.html ) * * * All original material copyright © 2007 by Aaron Balchunas ( [email protected] ), unless otherwise noted.
    [Show full text]
  • WAN Architectures and Design Principles Adam Groudan – Technical Solutions Architect Agenda
    WAN Architectures and Design Principles Adam Groudan – Technical Solutions Architect Agenda . WAN Technologies & Solutions • WAN Transport Technologies • WAN Overlay Technologies • WAN Optimisation • Wide Area Network Quality of Service . WAN Architecture Design Considerations • WAN Design and Best Practices • Secure WAN Communication with GETVPN • Intelligent WAN Deployment . Summary The Challenge . Build a network that can adapt to a quickly changing business and technical environment . Realise rapid strategic advantage from new technologies • IPv6: global reachability • Cloud: flexible diversified resources • Internet of Things • Fast-IT • What’s next? . Adapt to business changes rapidly and smoothly • Mergers & divestures • Changes in the regulatory & security requirements • Changes in public perception of services Network Design Modularity East Theater West Theater Global IP/MPLS Core Tier 1 Tier In-Theater IP/MPLS Core Tier 2 Tier West Region East Region Internet Cloud Public Voice/Video Mobility Tier 3 Tier Metro Metro Service Private Service Public IP IP Service Service Hierarchical Network Principle . Use hierarchy to manage network scalability and complexity while reducing routing algorithm overhead . Hierarchical design used to be… • Three routed layers • Core, distribution, access • Only one hierarchical structure end-to-end . Hierarchical design has become any design that… • Splits the network up into “places,” or “regions” • Separates these “regions” by hiding information • Organises these “regions” around a network core • “hub and spoke” at a macro level MPLS L3VPN Topology Definition Spoke Site 1 Spoke Spoke Site 2 Site Y Hub Site (The Network) SP-Managed Equivalent to MPLS IP WAN Spoke Spoke Spoke Spoke Spoke Spoke Spoke Site 1 Site 2 Site X Site Y Site N Site X Site N .
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Performance Analysis of Route Redistribution Among Three Different Routing Protocols Based on Opnet Simulation
    International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.9, No.2, March 2017 A COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF ROUTE REDISTRIBUTION AMONG THREE DIFFERENT ROUTING PROTOCOLS BASED ON OPNET SIMULATION Zeyad Mohammad 1, Ahmad Abusukhon 2 and Marzooq A. Al-Maitah 3 1,3 Department of Computer Network, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan 2Department of Computer Science, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan ABSTRACT In an enterprise network, it is normal to use multiple dynamic routing protocols for forwarding packets. Therefore, the route redistribution is an important issue in an enterprise network that has been configured by multiple different routing protocols in its routers. In this study, we analyse the performance of the combination of three routing protocols in each scenario and make a comparison among our scenarios. We have used the OPNET 17.5 simulator to create the three scenarios in this paper by selecting three different routing protocols from the distance vector and link state routing protocols in each scenario. In the first scenario, the network routers are configured from EIGRP, IGRP, and IS-IS that is named EIGRP_IGRP_ISIS in our simulation. The OSPF_IGRP_ISIS scenario is a mixed from EIGRP, IGRP, and IS-IS protocols that is the second scenario. The third scenario is OSPF_IGRP_EIGRP that is the route redistribution among OSPF, IGRP, and IS-IS protocols. The simulation results showed that the performance of the EIGRP_IGRP_ISIS scenario is better than the other scenarios in terms of network convergence time, throughput, video packet delay variation, and FTP download response time. In contrast, the OSPF_IGRP_ISIS has less voice packet delay variation, video conferencing and voice packet end to end delays, and queuing delay as compared with the two other scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • A Project Report on REDISTRIBUTION of ROUTING PROTOCOLS with FRAME RELAY, VOIP & INTER-VLAN ROUTING SUBMITTED to RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA (M.P)
    A Project Report On REDISTRIBUTION OF ROUTING PROTOCOLS WITH FRAME RELAY, VOIP & INTER-VLAN ROUTING SUBMITTED TO RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA (M.P) in the partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Engineering In Computer Science & Engineering SUBMITTED BY Pulkit Vohra Shivangi Garg Sourabh Mishra (0905cs0910 ) (0905cs091111) (0905cs091118) Under the guidance of Prof. Rajendra Kushwah (Head of the Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering) DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF TECHONOLOGY & MANAGAMENT , GWALIOR-474001 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work which is being presented in this project report entitled, “Redistribution of Protocols with Inter-vlan Routing” in partial fulfilment of requirements for the award of the degree of BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING in COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING ,submitted in the Department of Computer Science & Engineering, ITM Universe ,Gwalior, is an authentic record of my own work carried out under the guidance of Prof. Rajendra Kushwah, HOD, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, ITM Universe, Gwalior, during March-April, 2013. The matter embodied in this report has not been submitted by me for the award of any other degree or diploma. Dated: April 26th , 2013 PULKIT VOHRA SHIVANGI GARG SOURABH MISHRA CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to the best of my knowledge. Prof. Rajendra Kushwah Head of the Department Department of Computer Science & Engineering Institute of Technology & Management, opp. Sitholi Station , Gwalior- 474001 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to and sincere thanks to my guide, Prof. Rajendra Kushwah ,HOD, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Institute of Technology & Management, for his intuitive and careful guidance and constant encouragement throughout the course of my seminar work.
    [Show full text]