Choosing the appropriate routing protocol is critical to an IP addressing plan. This tip, reposted courtesy of SearchNetworking.com, explores the parameters used to evaluate the suitability of a routing protocol. The different characteristics of IP routing protocols are described along with the operation of industry standard protocols such as Routing Information Protocol (RIP) and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF).
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
There are several characteristics against which a routing protocol is judged:
The routing protocol must exhibit stability against routing loops, which can crash a network as a result of
When a topology change occurs, such as the loss or addition of a subnet, then there is a time lapse before every router on the network is aware of this change. During this time interval, which is called the convergence time, some routers are operating off inconsistent information. Hence the convergence time can also be thought of the time lag from a topology change occurring to the point where all routers in the network have consistent routing information in relation to the affected subnet. The speed of convergence can vary dramatically on a network depending on a number of factors, not the least of which are the operational characteristics of the routing protocol itself.
Sophisticated link state routing protocols such as Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) maintain a link state database of all subnets on the network detailing what routers are attached to them. If a link goes down the directly attached router will send an immediate Link State Advertisement (LSA) to its neighbor routers and this information floods through the network. Each router, upon receiving the LSA, can consult its database and independently re-calculate the routing table following the topology change. Convergence is fast and reliable as a consequence of OSPF maintaining extensive network topology information above and beyond a routing table. This is distinct from simpler protocols such as RIP, which, as already discussed, require the use of a hold-down timer following a topology change in order to ensure a loop-free convergence.
A router that learns multiple paths to a particular destination network (via a routing protocol) will choose the path with the best metric and place that in its routing table. If the best metric is true of more than one path then each of these least cost paths will be placed in the routing table, and equal cost load balancing will be performed. Different routing protocols use different metrics; in other words various routing protocols each have their own way of deciding the best path to a destination. The metric should be sufficiently sophisticated to ensure that the routing protocol's interpretation of the best path is a realistic one.
RIP uses hop count as its metric and this is yet another limitation of that particular routing protocol. For example if a router had two paths to a destination where one path was a 56k link and the other were a T-1, RIP would see each path as equal cost if the number of router hops is equal. Thus, RIP would load balance even though one path is 23 times faster than the other one. OSPF uses an administrative cost metric that can be configured arbitrarily. On Cisco routers it is automatically calculated to be inversely proportional to the bandwidth of the link. Nortel take an alternative approach by keeping the OSPF cost equal by default on all links. The network administrator then configures the value on the router interface to relate inversely to the speed of the link.
The significance of VLSM has already been demonstrated. Classless routing protocols support VLSM since they carry the mask in the routing updates. Standardized classless IP routing protocols include OSPF and RIP version 2. RIP version 1 is considered a classful routing protocol since it does not include the subnet mask within the routing update.
A routing protocol should support configurable route summarization. The significance of being able to configure route summarization at strategic points in the network has already been described. Apart from configurable route summarization, some protocols exhibit automatic route summarization. This feature is not necessarily as good as it sounds and in some cases it can be decidedly problematic. Classful routing protocols such as RIP v1 automatically summarize based on class when advertising across a major network boundary. For example subnets of 172.16.0.0 would be advertised as a single route to the 172.16.0.0/16 Class B network if the router were advertising across a link that was part of anything other than this particular Class B network. This is necessary with classful routing protocols since because they do not advertise the mask the downstream router has no way of deducing the subnet mask if it does not have interfaces in that major network. Hence it must be assumed (usually incorrectly) that no subnetting is taking place. Automatic route summarization can potentially cause problems if summarization occurs at more than one point in the network, since the summarized routes may be in conflict. This scenario occurs when a router receives identical summary routes from opposite directions and is commonly referred to as a discontiguous network. You can think of discontiguous as meaning 'broken up' by another network. If a major network such as 172.16.0.0 were discontiguous, then routers in the intermediate network (say it's addressed as part of the Class B 22.214.171.124) would receive 172.16.0.0/16 summary routes from opposite directions. These routes would attempt to load share across these routes. It actual fact there would be serious connectivity problems. TCP-based applications would require re-transmissions for every wrong routing choice and UDP applications simply wouldn't work!
The difference between a classful and classless routing protocol is very simple. Classless protocols include the mask in the update while classful protocols do not. The preceding discussion however should have highlighted the fact that the consequences of this simple difference are far-reaching. Classful protocols such as RIP version 1 do not support VLSM, discontiguous networks or configurable route summarization, and are therefore unsuitable for modern networks.
The question of scalability relates to the ability of the routing protocol to adequately support network operation as the network grows with the addition of more IP subnets. Issues such as convergence speed and support for VLSM and configurable route summarization ultimately determine the scalability of the routing protocol. The efficiency with which routing information is exchanged is also relevant. Distance vector protocols such as RIP periodically broadcast the entire routing table to neighbor routers. The more sophisticated protocols only advertise event-driven topology changes once the initial routing information has been exchanged, clearly a more efficient mechanism.
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
OSPF is a very complex IP routing protocol and a full explanation of its operation is beyond the scope of this article. However it is worth summarizing the advantages that it provides over distance vector routing protocols such as RIP. If one word were needed to justify the employment of OSPF, it would be scalability. There are a number of reasons why OSPF is suitable for large and growing networks, and they are all in some way inter-related.
- Hierarchical structure: OSPF supports the ability to divide the network into multiple areas that have a certain degree of autonomy from each other. In such a structure there is a backbone area (which is always designated as Area 0) and a number of other areas that, barring exceptional cases, must directly attach to Area 0. A consequence of a well-planned hierarchical design is that each area's routes can be summarized into contiguous blocks. OSPF also supports the ability to summarize routes that are redistributed from another routing protocol.
- Speed of convergence: Each router running OSPF maintains a database of the logical topology of the network. The database details every link, LAN segment and router on the network. This increased intelligence of OSPF means that it can converge faster without having to resort to the crude convergence methods of distance vector protocols.
Efficient update processing: Incremental updates are sent when there is a network topology change rather than using periodic updates. OSPF also uses well-known multicast addresses rather than broadcasts to transfer routing information.
- VLSM: Since it is a classful protocol, OSPF supports VLSM allowing for an efficient use of IP address space.
Okay, so I have now alluded to all of OSPF's advantages. However almost every networking protocol is a double-edged sword to at least some extent, and OSPF is no different. There are two potential disadvantages of OSPF that deserve consideration:
- Resource utilization: OSPF increases router memory requirements due to the fact that each OSPF router maintains a topological database of the network. The routing table is calculated from this database, which consumes more memory than the routing table itself.
Running OSPF also increases the average router CPU utilization. In order to recalculate the routing table following a topology change the Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm is run. This is a processor-intensive activity that could potentially restrain the performance of low-end routers.
- Design restrictions: For a large network that also needs to incorporate scope for growth, multiple OSPF areas should normally be used. There are certain rules how traffic should move between these areas and this can impose some design restrictions.
OSPF provides a facility whereby a network can be segregated into multiple areas. The whole idea behind this concept is to reduce the memory and CPU overhead associated with running the protocol. A router running OSPF in a multi-area implementation retains the database for its local area rather than for the entire network. This reduces memory consumption and it exploits the fact that on a well designed network it's usually unnecessary for a router to have full details of sections of the network that are very remote. For this same reason updates are just flooded within the local area after a topology change, thus reducing routing traffic and the CPU consumption associated with frequent and often unnecessary route re-calculations.
About the author
Cormac Long is the author of IP Network Design and Cisco Internetworking and Troubleshooting.
This tip originally appeared on SearchNetworking.com.