Call for Paper

CAE solicits original research papers for the July 2021 Edition. Last date of manuscript submission is June 30, 2021.

Read More

Dynamic Routing Implementation Decision between OSPFv3 and IS–IS in IPv6 Networks

Gideon Evans Norvor, Michael Asante, Anokye Acheampong Amponsah. Published in Networks.

Communications on Applied Electronics
Year of Publication: 2016
Publisher: Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Authors: Gideon Evans Norvor, Michael Asante, Anokye Acheampong Amponsah
10.5120/cae2016652446

Gideon Evans Norvor, Michael Asante and Anokye Acheampong Amponsah. Dynamic Routing Implementation Decision between OSPFv3 and IS–IS in IPv6 Networks. Communications on Applied Electronics 6(3):25-34, November 2016. BibTeX

@article{10.5120/cae2016652446,
	author = {Gideon Evans Norvor and Michael Asante and Anokye Acheampong Amponsah},
	title = {Dynamic Routing Implementation Decision between OSPFv3 and IS–IS in IPv6 Networks},
	journal = {Communications on Applied Electronics},
	issue_date = {November 2016},
	volume = {6},
	number = {3},
	month = {Nov},
	year = {2016},
	issn = {2394-4714},
	pages = {25-34},
	numpages = {10},
	url = {http://www.caeaccess.org/archives/volume6/number3/683-2016652446},
	doi = {10.5120/cae2016652446},
	publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
	address = {New York, USA}
}

Abstract

The choice of a suitable routing protocol for implementation is an important part of every network design. During routing protocol implementation, several decisions are considered in order to select the best protocol for deployment. These decisions are usually taken on the basis of some quantitative parameters that are used to determine which protocol will perform better than others whenever there are different routing protocols available. The routing protocol with the best performance in terms of these parameters is considered the most suitable protocol and is selected for implementation. In this paper, performance of two routing protocols (OSPFv3 and IS–IS) for IPv6 has been measured and compared by simulation using Riverbed Modeler Academic Edition. Performance evaluation is based on convergence duration, IPv6 packets dropped, throughput, link utilization and queuing delay as the main parameters. The main objective of this paper is to compare both protocols and to evaluate their performance in order to determine which of them will be the more suitable one for routing network traffic in IPv6. In order to achieve the objective of this paper, two scenarios were used: OSPFv3 scenario and IS–IS scenario. Both scenarios were simulated against the chosen parameters. Overall, simulation results have shown that IS–IS performed better than OSPFv3 on the basis of convergence time, link utilization and queuing delay. OSPFv3 on the other hand performed better than IS–IS on the basis of network throughput. On the basis of IPv6 traffic dropped, IS–IS performed better than OSPFv3 when the simulation started. However, before the simulation ended, OSPFv3 dropped the least IPv6 traffic.

References

  1. Genkov, D. (2011). An approach for finding proper packet size in IPv6 networks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, 442–447. ACM.
  2. Kannagi, P., Rajasekar, M. (2013). Performance comparison of routing protocols (OSPF & EIGRP). International Journal of Advanced Research, 1 (3) 13–22.
  3. Lemma, E. S. & Angelo, W. (2009). Performance comparison of EIGRP/IS–IS and OSPF/IS–IS [www.diva–portal.org].
  4. Kaur, J., Singh, P. (2014). Simulation based performance analysis of IPv6 based IS–IS, OSPFv3 and OSPFv3_IS–IS protocols. International Journal of Software and Hardware Research Engineering, 2 (8), 25–28.
  5. Lammle, T. (2007). CCNA: Cisco Certified Network Associate, Study Guide, 6th edition. Indiana, Indianapolis, Wiley Publishing, Inc.
  6. Pandey, N., Kumar, D., Palwal, H. (2015). Simulation based comparative study on EIGRP/IS–IS and OSPF/IS–IS. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, 3 (2), 204–214.
  7. Farhangi, S., Rostami A., Golmohammadi, S. (2012). Performance comparison of mixed protocols based on EIGRP, IS–IS and OSPF for real–time applications. Middle–East Journal of Scientific Research, 2(11), 1502–1508, doi 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2012. 12.11.144.
  8. Thorenoor, S. G. (2010). Communication service provider’s choice between OSPF and IS–IS dynamic routing protocol and implementation criteria using OPNET. In second International Conference on Computer and Network Technology (ICCNT), Bangkok, 38 (42), 23–25.
  9. Hopps, C. (2008). Routing IPv6 with IS–IS. RFC5308.[https://www.rfceditor.org/rfc/rfc5308.txt], (accessed 2016 February 18).
  10. Cisco. (2016). Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX–OS Unicast Routing Configuration Guide, ReleaseRelease5.x[http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/5_x/nxos/unicast/configuration/guide/l3_cli_nxos/l3_ospfv3.html],(accessed 2016 March)
  11. Empson, E. (2007). CCNP BSCI Portable Command Guide. Cisco Press.
  12. Kaur, A., Kumar, E. D. (2015): Comparative analysis of link state protocols OSPF and IS–IS International Journal of Computer Science Trends and Technology, 3 (4), 159–168.
  13. Roussinos, P. A. (2014). Performance comparison of OSPF and IS–IS routing protocols in dual–stack enterprise networks. (Doctoral dissertation, Edinburgh Napier University), [soc.napier.ac.uk], (accessed 2016 January 4).
  14. Pan, J., & Jain, R. (2008). A survey of network simulation tools: Current status and future developments. [www.cse.wustl.edu], (accessed 2015 December 7).

Keywords

Dynamic routing, OSPFv3, IS–IS, and IPv6.