Differences between Distance Vector and Link State Routing Protocols
Differences between distance vector (RIP) and link-state (OSPF) routing protocols:
The following are advantages of link-state routing protocols (OSPF): * Link-state protocols use cost metrics to choose paths through the network. The cost metric reflects the capacity of the links on those paths. * An LSA exchange is triggered by an event in the network instead of periodic updates. This speeds up the convergence process because there is no need to wait for a series of timers to expire before the routers can converge. * Each router has a complete and synchronized picture of the network. Therefore, it is very difficult for routing loops to occur. * Routers use the latest information to make the best routing decisions. * The link-state database sizes can be minimized with careful network design. This leads to smaller Dijkstra calculations and faster convergence. * Every router, at the very least, maps the topology of its own area of the network. This attribute helps to troubleshoot problems that can occur.
The following are some disadvantages of link-state routing protocols: * They require more memory and processor power than distance vector protocols. This makes it expensive to use for organizations with small budgets. * They require strict hierarchical network design, so that a network can be broken into smaller areas to reduce the size of the topology tables. * They require an administrator who understands the protocols well. * They flood the network with LSAs during the initial discovery process. This process can significantly decrease the capability of the network to transport data. It can also noticeably degrade the network performance.
An overall comparison between both routing protocols used in this lab follows: 1. RIP is appropriate for small networks, and the best path is based on the lowest number of hops. OSPF is appropriate for large, scalable internetworks, and the best path is determined by the
The following are advantages of link-state routing protocols (OSPF): * Link-state protocols use cost metrics to choose paths through the network. The cost metric reflects the capacity of the links on those paths. * An LSA exchange is triggered by an event in the network instead of periodic updates. This speeds up the convergence process because there is no need to wait for a series of timers to expire before the routers can converge. * Each router has a complete and synchronized picture of the network. Therefore, it is very difficult for routing loops to occur. * Routers use the latest information to make the best routing decisions. * The link-state database sizes can be minimized with careful network design. This leads to smaller Dijkstra calculations and faster convergence. * Every router, at the very least, maps the topology of its own area of the network. This attribute helps to troubleshoot problems that can occur.
The following are some disadvantages of link-state routing protocols: * They require more memory and processor power than distance vector protocols. This makes it expensive to use for organizations with small budgets. * They require strict hierarchical network design, so that a network can be broken into smaller areas to reduce the size of the topology tables. * They require an administrator who understands the protocols well. * They flood the network with LSAs during the initial discovery process. This process can significantly decrease the capability of the network to transport data. It can also noticeably degrade the network performance.
An overall comparison between both routing protocols used in this lab follows: 1. RIP is appropriate for small networks, and the best path is based on the lowest number of hops. OSPF is appropriate for large, scalable internetworks, and the best path is determined by the