Comparative Study of EIGRP and OSPF Protocols based on Network Convergence

Comparative study of EIGRP and

OSPF protocols based on

network convergence

Okonkwo, IJ and Emmanuel, ID

10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0110605

Title

Comparative study of EIGRP and OSPF protocols based on

network convergence

Authors

Okonkwo, IJ and Em manuel, ID

Type

Article

URL

This version is available at:

http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/57895/

Publish e d Date

2020

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford.

Where copyright per mits, full text m aterial held in the repository is m ade

freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-

com mercial private study or research purposes. Please check the m a nuscript

for any further copyright restrictions.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedur e, please

contact the Repository Team at: usir@salford.ac.uk.

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

Comparative Study of EIGRP and OSPF Protocols

based on Network Convergence

Ifeanyi Joseph Okonkwo

Imperial College London

London, United Kingdom

Ikiomoye Douglas Emmanuel

University of Salford

Manchester, United Kingdom

Abstract—Dynamic routing protocols are one of the fastest

growing routing protocols in networking technologies because of

their characteristics such as high throughput, flexibility, low

overhead, scalability, easy configuration, bandwidth, and CPU

utilization. Albeit convergence time is a critical problem in any of

these routing protocols. Convergence time describes summary of

the updated, complete, and accurate information of the network.

Several studies have investigated EIGRP and OSPF on the

internet; however, only a few of these studies have considered

link failure and addition of new links using different network

scenarios. This research contributes to this area. This

comparative study uses a network simulator GNS3 to simulate

different network topologies. The results are validated using

Cisco hardware equipment in the laboratory. The network

topology implemented in this research are star and mesh

topology. The results are validated using Cisco hardware

equipment in the laboratory. Wireshark is effectively used in

capturing and analyzing the packets in the networks. This helps

in monitoring accurate time response for the various packets.

The results obtained from Wireshark suggest the EIGRP has a

higher performance in terms of convergence duration with a link

failure or new link added to the network than the OSPF routing

protocol. Following this study EIGRP is recommended for most

heterogeneous network implementations over OSPF routing

protocol.

Keywords—OSPF (Open Shortest Path First); EIGRP

(Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol); routing; protocol;

network; convergence; topology; routers; packets; Wireshark

I. INTRODUCTION

Computer networking is now a fundamental part of life,

especially the use of the internet. As new technologies

emerge, the demand for wireless mobile computing is growing

fast, thus the need for efficient routing protocols [1]. These

protocols define the mechanism by which routers acquire

information about the performance of the network topology,

verify and identify the optimal route that a packet will take to

arrive at its destination. Hence, routing algorithms are crucial

because they select the best path for communication in a

heterogeneous network. Routing is the entire process of

selecting the optimal route for the transmission of data packets

from source to destination [2]. The process includes routers

advertising their known IP networks, the administrative cost to

its neighbor or adjacent routers, in this way the neighbor’s

routers gain knowledge of the characteristics and the topology

of the network, then update the routing table. The

administrative cost is the number of hops, link speed and

latency [3].

There has been different research about routing protocols,

especially on EIGRP and OSPF routing protocol in terms of

convergence time. This research in routing protocols has been

predominant because of the increasing demand of data

transmission over a reliable network connection amongst

enterprise companies, therefore network resilience/redundancy

has been the key in curbing link failures. If there is a link

failure in the network, the routing protocols are expected to

identify the failure and converge to form a new topology for

the continuous flow of packets in the network. Despite the

wide research and interest made, many problems about routing

protocols are yet to be solved in terms of convergence rate,

which can yield optimal routing to deliver high throughput in

heterogeneous networks. Hence, this work focuses on

analyzing several scenarios of link failures, measuring their

convergence rate, and identifying changes in the network

topology when using EIGRP and OSPF routing protocol [4].

The rate of convergence occurs when all the routers in the

network have an updated, complete, and accurate information

on the network. The convergence rate includes the total time

required by all the routers to calculate the optimal path, update

their routing tables, and share the routing information with

neighboring routers in the network.

The remainder of this study is planned as follows. In

Section II, present a brief literature of recent work and

background knowledge of Routing Information Protocol

(RIP), OSPF and EIGRP. Section III describes the

methodology, where the network topology such as star and

mesh are designed. Section IV presents the design parameters

and metrics, which includes the Hello interval, hop count and

interface cost. Section V are the Wireshark results and

Section VI is the presentation and analyses of the results.

Finally, the work is concluded in Section VII.

II. B

ACKGROUND

Dynamic routing protocols allow changes in the network

topology because of the update in routing tables. Dynamic

routing protocol is divided into distance vector routing

protocols and link state routing protocols. Distance vector

routing protocols calculate the administrative cost of a packet

arriving at a destination based on the number of routers the

packet passes through, these include Routing Information

Protocol (RIP) and EIGRP) [5]. Whilst, Link state routing

protocol is building a complete topology of the network and

calculates the optimal path from the topology for all

interconnected networks, these include Intermediate System to

39 | Page

www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Open Shortest Path First

(OSPF) [3].

There are series of research in convergence time, packet

loss and throughput of OSPF, EIGRP and RIP routing

protocol. Each of this research work has a unique role they

play in network efficiency. The first research work was the

Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) in

1969, which is the foundation of most routing algorithms [6].

Furthermore, [7] designed a star network topology consisting

of a switch, eight cisco routers and 14 hosts using the cisco

packet tracer to determine the convergence time. In a similar

context [8] determines a comparative study of RIP, OSPF and

EIGRP using ring topologies on GNS3 network simulator.

The design comprises five routers connected in a ring

topology with a personal computer that makes use of

networking management tools to manage the information in

the network. Also, [9] evaluates dynamic routing protocols for

real time applications such as voice, video based on

convergence time, end to end delay by using Cisco Packet

Tracer

and OPNET simulator. The design is implemented

using ten routers with two switches and ten personal

computers using a mesh topology. Author in [10] analyze

EIGRP and OSPF protocol with OPNET for real time

application with a focus on large, realistic and scalable

networks. Lastly [11], did a comparison of OSPF and EIGRP

in a small IPv6 Enterprise Network. Hence, within the best of

our knowledge of the literature presented. There is yet to be a

deep analysis of OSPF and EIGRP considering the scalability,

resilience, and validation of simulator results with Cisco

active devices.

A. Routing Information Protocol (RIP)

RIP is the first routing protocol implemented in the

TCP/IP and uses the variants of the Bellman-Ford algorithm

that was designed by Richard Bellman and Lester Ford in

1958

. They perform three functions, discovering the neighbor

router addresses, downloading of the routes, and updating the

routing table and the cost associated with each route. The first

RIP was designed in 1969; it has three versions RIPv1, RIPv2,

and RIPng. The latest version of RIPv2 and RIPng works in

IPV6 autonomous based systems. The implementation of the

exchange of information through the User Datagram Protocol

(UDP) and each router is limited to several routers in the

network around it. The RIP applies a hop count mechanism to

determine the optimal path for packet routing and a maximum

of 16 hops is applied to avoid routing loops in the network

B. Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)

OSPF is one of the widely used link state routing

protocols. It operates by routing network packets by gathering

link state information from neighboring routers thus,

computing a map of the network. OSPF sends different

messages, which include the hello messages, link state

request, updates, and database description packets

. OSPF

operates with Dijkstra's algorithm, which focuses on the

distribution of routing information in a single autonomous

system. There are different versions of OSPF; the first version

Cisco Packet Tracer: https://www.netacad.com/courses/packet-tracer

RFC 2453, RIP Version 2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2453

RFC 2328, OSPF Version 2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2328

was designed in 1989, which is known as OSPFv1 published

in RFC 1131, in 1998 the second version OSPFv2 published

in RFC 2328 and in 1999, the OSPFv3 is designed specifically

to accommodate the IPv6 published in RFC 5340

. OSPF

calculations are computed periodically on the link state

advertisement (LSA) received in the network and protocol

information [12]. A change in the topology is detected

quickly; hence, it is fast, flexible, and scalable in terms of

configuration parameters. The metric represents the path cost

between interfaces in OSPF and that define the speed,

bandwidth from nodes to another in the network [3].

C. Enhanced Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)

The Enhanced Gateway Routing Protocol is a hybrid

routing protocol developed in 1994. EIGRP focuses on

Classless Inter-Domain Routing/Variable length Subnet Mask,

route summarization with discontinuous networks and

supports load balancing across six routes to a single

destination. The EIGRP is designed based on the DUAL

(Diffusing Update Algorithm) algorithm and uses multicast

for routing updates [13]. The DUAL algorithm is used in

obtaining route freedom every time throughout different

routing computation and uses the reliable transport protocol to

ensure the successful delivery of each packet [13].

III. M

ETHODOLOGY

In the design of network scenarios, there are two network

topologies implemented. These topologies are used in

determining the convergence time of EIGRP and OSPF

routing protocol. In the analyses, design of four, six, eight till

twenty routers are implemented for both Star and Mesh

topologies for EIGRP and OSPF routing protocol using a

network simulator and Cisco hardware equipment.

A. Star Topology

In this topology, all the devices are connected to a central

hub or switch in a point-to-point connection. The advantage of

this topology, it is easy to troubleshoot and isolate problems. It

is easily expanded without disruption of the network topology.

In this design, the use of loop backs is implemented because a

star topology is based on a single network, but since routing

applied to a heterogeneous network, it allows hop-to-hop

transmission of data. Hence, loop back helps in creating a

virtual subnet in the network and each virtual subnet has a

network ID as a result making the network to be

heterogeneous [14]. Fig. 1 shows a simple design of six

routers with the loopback network as virtual subnets.

B. Mesh Topology

Mesh topology is a topology where all devices are

connected to each other. Hence, they have a high level of

redundancy. They are rarely implemented in today’s networks

because of the cabling cost, wiring which is complicated and

the problem faced in troubleshooting the network at failure.

There are two variations of mesh topology, full and partial

mesh topology, in this design a partial mesh topology is

implemented because of the number of ports in the routers

[15]. Fig. 2 shows a diagram showing partial mesh topology

designed to be used in the network.

RFC 5340, OSPF for IPv6 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5340

40 | Page

www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

Fig. 1. Design of Star Topology for Open Shortest Path First Routing

Protocol using Loop Back.

Fig. 2. Design of Mesh Topology for Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing

Protocol.

IV. DESIGN PARAMETERS AND METRICS

In the design of the EIGRP and OSPF Routing Protocols,

there are parameters that are considered in the design such as

the interface cost, hello interval, and maximum hops. These

parameters are key in the implementation of the EIGRP and

OSPF Routing Protocols in both the network simulator and

hardware implementation.

A. Open Shortest Path First Routing Protocol

In the OSPF routing protocol, the cost associated with the

interfaces depends on the network cables used in the design.

In each of the topology designs, the interface cost is equal to

one (1) because Fast Ethernet is implemented and for the hello

interval ten seconds is used. The router dead interval and

transmission delay are set to be 40 and one seconds

respectively [16]. OSPF routing protocol does not have a

maximum number of hops. See Table I for setup.

B. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)

In EIGRP, the cost associated with the interfaces is one (1)

for both software and hardware implementation. Since Fast

Ethernet link is used so the cost is equal to one (1) while in the

hello interval is ten seconds and the hold time is three times

the hello interval. The split horizon is enabled to avoid

advertisement of route to the neighbor from which route was

learned [17]. See Table II for setup.

C. Convergence Duration

The convergence duration occurs when all the routing

tables in all the routers in each network are consistent. In

OSPF, convergence duration involves the total time taken for

all the routers to exchange the database description packets

among the routing tables on the network. These include

determining the best path and sharing the complete

information in all the routers in the network. In EIGRP, the

convergence time is the total time taken for the updates

packets and acknowledgment packets to distribute the routing

information among the different routers in the network.

Furthermore, the complete time required for each router in the

network to have complete information on the neighboring

routers defines the convergence time. In addition, it comprises

the speed of transmission and calculation of the optimal paths

taken [18].

D. Convergence Startup Time

This is a measure of how fast and precise individual

routers in a group or network are connected dynamically to

exchange their routing among themselves for the first time in

the network. This is very important because the faster the

network converges the faster it can start its routing process.

E. Convergence Failure

This is a measure of how fast and precise time taken for

individual routers in a network to converge dynamically or

adapt to changes in the network such as node failure, loop

back or any other factor that causes a network to fail.

F. Convergence New Link

This is to measure how fast and precise time taken for

individual routers in a network to converge dynamically or

recover from changes in the network as a result of adding a

new link or nodes. Hence, in the addition of a new link or

node, the convergence time will be changed [19], owing to

determination of the new convergence time.

TABLE I. DESIGN PARAMETERS VALUE FOR OSPF ROUTING PROTOCOL

Parameters Implemented

Interface Cost 1.00

Hello Interval 10.00 seconds

Router Dead Interval 40.00 seconds

Transmission Delay 2.00 seconds

Retransmission Interval 5.00 seconds

Number of Hops Unlimited

TABLE II. DESIGN PARAMETERS VALUE FOR ENHANCED INTERIOR

GATEWAY ROUTING PROTOCOL

Parameters Implemented

Interface Cost 1.00

Hello Interval 10.00 seconds

Hold Time 30.00 seconds

Split Horizon Enabled

Number of Hops (limited) 100

41 | Page

www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

G. Graphical Network Simulator (GNS3)

GNS3

(1.5.4) is an open source software with no

limitation of the number of devices that will be used in the

environment. It mimics a real-time network scenario

simulation for pre-deployment without the need for hardware.

Omnet++, NS2, and OPNET are also powerful open source

software that can be used in designing network models. They

are built on the platform of a discrete event simulator. Which

is used in networking research and provides a comprehensive

development environment to support user-defined models

[18]. However, GNS3 comes with an inbuilt Wireshark for

packet capturing and monitoring.

H. Wireshark

Wireshark

is a powerful computer software used for

network packet analyzer. The network packet analyzer verifies

and captures network packets and displays comprehensive

information of the packet data. Some useful features include

capturing live packet data, displaying packets with detailed

information, filter packets, search, and create various statistics

about the packet data. In this work, Wireshark comes inbuilt

with GNS3, making the capture of the packet data to be more

realistic and effective than using extra hardware to capture the

information of the packets [20]. Wireshark is proposed ahead

of other monitoring devices because it captures network

failures, recovery, and jitter performance of the two protocols.

Therefore, Wireshark is used in the hardware implementation

and importantly, Wireshark does not require any external

component for the capturing of packets [20].

I. Cisco Packet Tracer

The Cisco Packet

Tracer is an innovative network and

technology tool developed by Cisco Networking Academy. It

provides a combination of realistic simulation and

visualization experiences for different user’s collaborations. In

this work, it is used in designing the network topology that

will be used for analysis or reference models.

V. W

IRESHARK RESULT

The Wireshark results helps in checking the network

configuration, a design implemented using the EIGRP and

OSPF routing protocol. The results monitored or obtained are

expected to mimic most of the characteristics highlighted in

the background knowledge of OSPF and EIGRP.

A. Open Shortest Path First Routing Protocol Result

The convergence startup time is the duration of the first

Database description till the last link-state acknowledgement

packets are displayed in Fig. 3.

The database description provides information of each

router in the network. Wireshark monitors the entire exchange

of the packets in the different topology designed in the

network. The results show the Hello, Database Description

packets when implementing OSPF (Simulator). The link-state

request, updates, and acknowledgment operate synonymously.

The link-state request sends a specific request to nodes in the

https://gns3.com/

https://www.wireshark.org/

https://www.netacad.com/courses/packet-tracer

network when the request is sent. The network updates itself

to identify the changes in topology and reply with an

acknowledgment.

B. Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol Result

The Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol packets

are different from the ones obtained in Open Shortest Path

First Routing Protocol. The convergence duration occurs when

the hello packets have been distributed in the entire nodes in

the network followed by the updates and acknowledgement

packets. The monitoring software (Wireshark) captures all the

Hello, updates and acknowledgment packets in the network

that leads to convergence between the routers. Enhanced

Interior Gateway Routing Protocol operates such that

whenever there are changes in the link or nodes in the

network, it will send out a query packet that will have an

equivalent reply. This occurs because of a shutdown or failure

in any of the links or nodes (routers) in the network. The result

is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 3. Wireshark Results of updates and Acknowledgement Packets for

OSPF.

Fig. 4. Wireshark Results of updates and Acknowledgement Packets for

EIGRP.

42 | Page

www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

VI. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

In the design of the EIGRP and OSPF Routing Protocols,

two topologies are examined (Star and Partial Mesh) which

are widely used in today’s networking for both software and

hardware implementation.

A. OSPF Routing Protocol (Star Topology) Software

The average convergence duration at the start of the

network and when one of the links fail of star topology using

OSPF increases as the number of resources increases. The

results shows that when the number of routers is less than ten

(10), it takes less than 15.5 milliseconds for the routers to

converge, the same occurs when one of the links fails in any

of the designs. Meanwhile, when a new link is installed in the

network, it requires a longer time to converge, though this

does not transpire in all cases, see Fig. 5.

B. OSPF Routing Protocol (Mesh Topology) Software

The results show that when a new link is added to the

network, it requires less time for the network to converge.

More than 90% of the time, it requires less than 20

milliseconds for the network to converge when new nodes are

added. The time required for the network to converge at a start

and when a link fails are relatively the same. Moreover, it

takes less than 9% of the time for the difference between the

convergence time at the start and when a link fails in each of

the numbers of resources. Furthermore, the result obtained

shows that mesh topology takes a longer time to converge at

the start and when there is a link failure especially as the

number of routers increases in the network, see Fig. 6.

C. OSPF Routing Protocol (Star Topology) Hardware

The result is the same as the simulated result obtained in

(A) above, just a slight difference which is negligible. When

the number of routers is twelve (12) the convergence time is

19.85 milliseconds which is slightly higher than the simulator

results with 1.2 milliseconds. Whereas when a link fails, the

time required for it to re-converge is 20.23 milliseconds which

is approximately 20.0 milliseconds. When a new node is

added to the network the time difference between the

simulated and hardware result is 3 milliseconds. The GNS3

result is slightly different from the hardware result with about

10% which might be from errors of configuration or computer

bugs that is associated with GNS3, see Fig. 7.

D. OSPF Routing Protocol (Mesh Topology) Hardware

The time taken for the convergence duration is high when

compared with the simulator results obtained. When a new

link is added to the network, it takes 17.85 milliseconds for

the network to converge while in the simulator is 8.98

milliseconds. Furthermore, the results obtained in the

hardware simulation have a stable slope and consistent trend

than the results obtained using GNS3. In each of the network

scenarios or number of resources the convergence duration,

the time when a link fails, and new links are added to the

network is higher in the hardware implementation than the

simulator results obtained, see Fig. 8.

Fig. 5. OSPF Results for Star Topology – Software.

Fig. 6. OSPF Results for Mesh Topology – Software.

Fig. 7. OSPF Results for Star Topology (Hardware).

43 | Page

www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

Fig. 8. OSPF Results for Mesh Topology (Hardware).

E. EIGRP (Star Topology) Software

The result obtained is consistent all through the different

convergence time. It takes an average of 5.25 milliseconds for

the network to converge, the same time it requires when a link

fails, or a new link is added to the network. Furthermore, it

takes an average of 26.25 milliseconds for the network to

converge when a link fails or when a new link is added to the

network when the number of resources is twenty 20

(maximum). The results indicate that the higher the resources

the slower the network takes to converge in each network

scenario. The average convergence time in EIGRP is faster

compared to the OSPF routing protocol when using the same

number of resources, settings, and devices, see Fig. 9.

F. EIGRP (Mesh Topology) Software

The results described the mesh topology to have the best

convergence duration, time when a link failure and new links

are added to the network. It takes an average of

1.8milliseconds for the network to converge when the number

of resources is 4. The same time (1.8milliseconds) is required

when a link fails, or a new link is added to the network. The

results describe that as the number of resources increases, the

convergence time increases representing a straight-line graph,

see Fig. 10. Furthermore, the results described that EIGRP has

a higher convergence period or performance in all the network

scenarios than any of the topologies implemented in simulated

and hardware devices.

G. EIGRP (Star Topology) Hardware

Considerably, it takes a longer time for the network to

converge compared to when a link is shut, or a new link is

added to the network. It requires an average of

17.54milliseconds for the network to converge at the

beginning while it requires less than 14.00milliseconds to

converge when a link failure or a new link is added to the

network, see Fig. 11. This might be because of the

implementation of virtual subnets (loop back) in the star

topology. On the average, the results obtained from the

hardware implementation are better than the simulator with

about 10% in terms of convergence duration, the time when a

link fails, and a new link is added to the network.

Fig. 9. EIGRP Result for Star Topology (Software).

Fig. 10. EIGRP Result for Mesh Topology (Software).

Fig. 11. EIGRP Result for Star Topology (Hardware).

H. EIGRP (Mesh Topology) Hardware

The mesh topology using the EIGRP provides the best

performance for convergence duration, the time when a link

fails, and new links are added to the network. The hardware

results obtained are not different from the simulator results.

The slight difference occurs in the convergence duration with

44 | Page

www.ijacsa.thesai.org

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,

Vol. 11, No. 6, 2020

about 3.0 milliseconds when the network is flooded with

twelve routers. Because the convergence time of the failure of

a link and when a new link is added does not change. The

results indicate that EIGRP performs better in convergence

time since both software and hardware implementation

provides less than 10.0milliseconds for the network to

converge when a link fails, and a new link added to the

network, see Fig. 12.

Fig. 12. EIGRP Result for Mesh Topology (Hardware).

VII. CONCLUSION

A reflective summary of these experiments enables the

justification and analyses of EIGRP and OSPF routing

protocol using GNS3 and Cisco IOS devices using different

network scenarios. The EIGRP uses DUAL which helps in

recalculating a given route globally to avoid routing loop, so it

has the attributes of a link state and distance vector routing

protocol. This ensures a faster convergence time in all the

topologies when using GNS3 and Cisco IOS devices. This

experiment contributes to the existing knowledge by

identifying that: mesh topology has the best topology for

convergence time ahead of star topology. Based on the result

obtained, it clearly states that hardware implementations of

routing protocol are better than using a network simulator.

Because the network simulator has computer bugs, runtime

failure, updates and simulation errors which influence the

results obtained when implementing EIGRP and OSPF routing

protocol. The conclusion described in the network scenarios

indicates that EIGRP has a higher performance in convergence

duration, the time when a link fails, and new links added to the

network than OSPF routing protocol. This is because EIGRP

does not perform routing updates that require longer time

compared to the OSPF routing protocol.

Also, this research cannot be limited to only OSPF and

EIGRP, further analysis to BGP comparison with the above

protocol to see their different performance will be a good

research. Also, with the transition from IPV4 to IPV6,

research on how the protocol changes or adaptation in terms of

convergence time with the versions of IPV4 and IPV6 can be

examined. Finally, the Latency and Quality of Service are

vital areas of research in both EIGRP and OSPF routing

protocol.

REFERENCES

[1] Nefkens P-J. Phase Three: Design, Deploy, and Extend. In:

Transforming Campus Networks to Intent-Based Networking. Cisco

Press; 2019.

[2] Lamle T. CCNA® Cisco Certified Network Associate. Sybex; 2011.

[3] Hill S. Distance Vector Routing Protocols. Greater Manchester; 2016.

[4] Lacoste R, Edgeworth B. Chapter 2: EIGRP. In: CCNP Enterprise

Advanced Routing ENARSI 300-410 Official Cert Guide. Cisco Press;

2020.

[5] Tanenbaum AS, Wetherall DJ. Computer Networks. 2010.

[6] Evans J, Schneider G, Pinard K. The Internet Illustrated. 6th edition.

London: Course Technology Inc; 2009.

[7] Dey GK, Ahmed MM, Ahmmed KT. Performance analysis and

redistribution among RIPv2, EIGRP & OSPF Routing Protocol. In: 1st

International Conference on Computer and Information Engineering,

ICCIE 2015. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2016.

p. 21–4.

[8] Larrea Luzuriaga R, Jimenez J, Sendra S, Lloret J. Comparative Study

of Routing Protocols in Ring Topologies using GNS3. Valencia; 2016.

38–44 p.

[9] Sirika S. Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Routing Protocols for

Real time application. Int J Eng Trends Technol. 2016 Feb;Volume

32:328–37.

[10] Anibrika BS, Adamu M, Franklin A, Asante M. Performance Analysis

of Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) Over Open

Shortest Path First (OSPF) Protocol with Opnet. Int J Adv Comput Sci

Appl. 2016 May;7.

[11] Whitfield R, Zhu SY. A comparison of OSPFv3 and EIGRPv6 in a small

IPv6 enterprise network. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl [Internet].

2015;6(1):162–7. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10545/620915.

[12] Hellberg C, Greene D, Boyes T. Designing a Triple-Play Backbone. In:

Broadband Network Architectures: Designing and Deploying Triple-

Play Services. 2007.

[13] Diaz L. Diffusing Update Algorithm or DUAL. In: CCNA Routing and

Switching 200-125 Certification Guide. Packt Publishing; 2018.

[14] Usman A. Cisco Packet Tracer Overview [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020

Jun 21]. p. 9–14. Available from: https://www.slideshare.net/

AliUsman10/cisco-packet-tracer-overview.

[15] Henry T. Network Topologies. In Rhodes Island; 2017. Available from:

https://homepage.cs.uri.edu/~thenry/csc414/72_NetworkTopo_TOC.pdf.

[16] Mirzahossein Michael Nguyen Sarah Elmasry K. Analysis of RIP,

OSPF, and EIGRP Routing Protocols using OPNET [Internet]. 2013

[cited 2020 Jun 21]. Available from: www.sfu.ca/~mtn9/Group5.html.

[17] Wallace K. Split Horizon | CCNA Routing and Switching 200-125

[Internet]. Pearson IT Certification 2016; 2016 [cited 2020 Jun 21].

Available from: https://learning.oreilly.com/videos/ccna-routing-

and/9780134580715/9780134580715-CCNA_03_03_05.

[18] Kaur S, Roohie NM. (PDF) Performance Analysis of Interior Gateway

Protocols. Adv Res Electr Electron Eng [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Jun

21];01(01):59–63. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/303812574_Performance_Analysis_of_Interior_Gateway_Pr

otocols.

[19] Coleman A, Bombal D, Duponchelle J. Getting Started with GNS3 -

GNS3 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 20]. Available from:

https://docs.gns3.com/1PvtRW5eAb8RJZ11maEYD9_aLY8kkdhgaMB

0wPCz8a38/index.html.

[20] Sharpe R, Warnicke E, Lamping U. Wireshark User’s Guide Preface

Foreword [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Jun 20]. Available from:

https://www.wireshark.org/docs/.

45 | Page