Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocol RIPv2,
OSPF, EIGRP With BGP
Siti Ummi Masruroh,
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
ummi.masruroh@uinjkt.ac.id
Muhammad Fathul Iman
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
fathuliman@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id
Abstract— In modern large-scale networks that there
are many autonomous systems, dynamic routing protocol
used more often than static routing protocol. The most effective
and efficient routing protocol is needed to support modern
network on a large scale. This research was conducted to
compare the performance of a combination of internal with
external routing protocol by using GNS3. The parameters used in
this study is throughput, jitter, packet loss, and network
convergence. To get the good value of QoS (Quality of Service),
the value of throughput, jitter and packet loss should be kept
to a minimum. The researche that have been done among other
entitled Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocol RIPng,
OSPFv3, and EIGRP IPv6 Networking discuss the comparison
between internal routing protocol with the parameters of
throughput, jitter, and packet loss. The results of this research
indicate that the OSPF routing protocol has the smallest value of
network convergence. Then a combination of routing protocol
OSPF-BGP has the highest throughput, lowest packet loss, and
smallest jitter value
Keywords— Routing Protocol, Routing Redistribution, RIPv2,
OSPF, EIGRP, BGP
I. INTRODUCTION
As the increasingly rapid development of technology, the
growth of a communications network is also getting bigger. In
modern communication networks, such as the Internet
network, dynamic routing protocol used more often than static
routing protocol. With the development of the network, we
need a dynamic routing design that can accommodate these
changes without the intervention of the network administrator
when a developing or changing network [1].
Some routing protocol used to set the system contained in
AS (Autonomous System) called Interior Gateway
Protocol. This protocol implement that interact with their
system freely and mutually exchange the routing
information within an AS. As for the routing protocol that is
used to connect the AS in large networks called Exterior
Andrew Fiade
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
andrew_fiade@uinjkt.ac.id
Amelia
Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia
amelia.azhary@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id
Gateway Protocol (EGP). This protocol recognize the other
AS as neighbor AS and the only the minimum exchange
information needed to track information capacity [2].
There are some dynamic routing protocol that can be used
in a network, such as the Open Short Path First (OSPF),
Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Enhanced Interior Gateway
Routing Protocol (EIGRP). Each routing protocol has its own
advantages and disadvantages of each. Determination and
selection of routing protocols depends on several parameters
that affect the quality of a network [3].
As the number of routers becomes large, the overhead
involved in computing, storing, and communicating routing
information becomes prohibitive. Ideally, an organization
should be able to run and administer its network as it wishes,
while still being able to connect its network to other
outside networks. Both of these problems can be solved by
organizing routers into autonomous systems (ASs), with
each AS consisting of a group of routers that are typically
under the same administrative control (e.g., operated by the
same ISP or belonging to the same company network).
Routers within the same AS all run the same routing
algorithm and have information about each other—exactly as
was the case in our idealized model in the preceding section
[4].
II. RELATED WORKS
In a previous study, entitled "Performance Evaluation of
Routing Protocol RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP In IPv6
Network" conducted a simulation using RIPng and OSPFv3
routing protocols and EIGRP. RIPng uses distance vector
algorithms to determine the best path to a network. While
OSPFv3 uses link state algorithm to determine the best path to
a network. While EIGRP uses an algorithm distance vector
and link state. RIPng suitable for use in medium-scale
network down to the number of hosts that are not too large.
OSPFv3 suitable for use on a network medium scale up to a
large number of hosts. EIGRP is also suitable for use in large-
scale networks, but can only be applied EIGRP router cisco.
In these research made experiment routing protocol
RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP using cisco router unit 7. Each
scenario will be configured with each routing protocol and
simulated the process of sending data using software Iperf.
The simulation will be obtained from the throughput, jitter,
and packet loss of each routing protocol.

III. SIMULATION METHOD

Figure 1. Topology Draft Area
3.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION
Increasingly complex network conditions cause a network
administrator needs to do a network design with good 3.3 INPUT / OUTPUT DATA
performance. Application of proper routing protocol on a 3.3.1 Input
network can help improve it. Convergence, throughput, jitter, There are three essential attributes required are :
and packet loss are some of the many variables that determine 3.3.1.1 Node
good or poor performance of a network. The implementation Node is a network junction or
of routing protocol also influence the performance of a connection point. Each terminal,
network. The combination of the appropriate routing computers, routers and other number is
protocol is expected to provide optimal performance on a adjusted to the number of routers used.
network. Topic of this study is to analyze the performance of The simulation used 7 routers and 2 PC
network based on convergence, throughput, jitter and packet are connected to the router 9, and 7.
loss parameters on application of the combination of Internal 3.3.1.2 Bandwidth
Gateway Protocol (RIPv2, OSPF, EIGRP) with the External Bandwidth is a measure that indicates
Gateway Protocol (BGP). how much data can be passed on
through a network connection. The
3.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL amount of bandwidth used on this
Simulations will be performed at this stage following the steps simulation of 1Mbits /s.
in the configuration as in the real implementation. 3.3.1.3 Window size
Combinations used in this simulation is to combine Windows size is the value or the
internal routing protocols (RIPv2, OSPF, EIGRP) with maximum size of data that can be
external routing protocol (BGP). Each IGP will compare its sent without packet acknowledgment
performance with BGP. The design of the network model (confirmation). The smaller the value of
uses nine router unit and two units of PC. The design window size then it will slow down
topologies that do will divide the three areas of different the transfer, because the number of
routing protocols, namely, Area 0, Area 1 and Area External. packets of data that needs
Topology will be designed using GNS3 which also acts as a acknowledgment, size 2,4,6,8, and 32
tool for simulation. The objects which is used in the design is : Kbytes.
1. 9 Units Cisco Router 3725 Series with 4 serial port.
2. 2 Units PC which is connected with 2 router. 3.3.2 Output
3. 12 Connections Serial DTE/DCE to connect Variables used to get the output in this
router. simulation is based on the main problems in the
4. 2 Connections Copper Straight- Through to analysis of aggregate performance of internal
connect routers with PC. routing protocols (RIPv2, OSPF, EIGRP) with
external routing protocol (BGP) on IPv4
networks are :
3.3.2.1 Konvergensi
Output value of convergence carries all
the routing table to the state of
consistency to share information
through the network and calculate the
best path to all routers. Convergence
relates to the length of time required to
prepare and inform all the routing table
that is connected to the network.
3.3.2.2 Throughput
 Output throughput tested is the
maximum amount of traffic that can
be sent in seconds. The amount of
traffic that is sent shows how much data
can be sent to any combination of
routing protocol used.
3.3.2.3 Jitter
This output indicates the time it takes a
packet of data sent from the sending
node to the destination node.
3.3.2.4 Packet loss
This output is to measure the percentage
of the amount of data sent and received
data.
times. In the TCP packet, the window size used is 2, 4, 8, 16,
and 32 Kbytes. While the time spent UDP packet is 20, 30,
40, 50, and 60 seconds. Value is out at the end of the
experiment is the throughput on the TCP packets, jitter and
packet loss in UDP packets. Meanwhile, to measure the value
of convergence, disconnect between R2 to R3 which will be
followed by capturing packet.
IV. RESULT
4.1 Scenario 1 : RIPv2-BGP

3.4 MODELLING
Modeling scenarios for the simulation of internal
routing protocols combined with external routing protocol.
Simulation will be conducted with six scenarios. The scenario
consists of two combined routing protocol, are RIPv2, OSPF,
EIGRP, RIPv2- BGP, OSPF-BGP and EIGRP-BGP. Each
scenario will be simulated using the Graphical Network
Simulator app-3 (GNS3). Parameters measured at each Figure 2. RIPv2-BGP Throughput Graph
simulation is convergence, throughput, jitter, and packet
loss. From the chart above shows the change in the value of
throughput on each trial. The smallest throughput values
3.5 SIMULATION shown in the first experiment using size 2 Kbyte windows.
The simulation uses the network simulation application Throughput value then increased in the second
Graphical Network Simulator 3 (GNS3) version 1.5.2, and experiment using 4 Kbyte window size. In the next
VMware Workstation version 12.1.0 running on the experiment throughput values showed no significant
operating system used is Windows 10. Cisco 3725 series is changes, increased only in small quantities only. This
used as router with IOS operating system that runs on show has a maximum speed of the network and can not be
GNS3, and the operating system Ubuntu Server 14.04 Trusty increased more rapidly despite the enlarged size windows.
Tahr running inside VMware as a PC. To determine the
performance of the network, the author uses Iperf3 version
3.0.7 application that runs on the PC.

3.6 VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

This stage is the stage to perform verification and
validation of the previous stages. At this stage performed
experiments on each scenario to determine whether the
simulated network has been designed in the previous stages
have been run in accordance with the provisions of the Model
Conceptual phase, Input Output Data and Modelling. If an
error occurs in the experiments conducted at this stage, there
will be a correction or improvement at each stage of the
simulation method. If no error occurs, then it will proceed
to the next stage. Figure 3. RIPv2-BGP Jitter Graph

3.7 EXPERIMENTATION
The experiment conducted at each of the scenarios that have
been designed previously. There are 6 scenarios to be
simulated with routing protocols and routing protocols
combined external. Experiments conducted by sending a TCP
packet on each scenario as much as 5 times the size of
different windows, and UDP packets 5 times with
different time. So the total experiment is performed 10
From the chart above shows the change in the average value
of jitter on each trial. The jitter value is shown in a second
trial with a time of trial for 30 seconds while the smallest
jitter value shown in the last experiment with the time trial
for 60 seconds. The results of the above experiments also
showed that time had no effect on the value of a network jitter,
both among internal routing protocol to internally or from
internal to external.
 Figure 6. OSPF-BGP Throughput Graph

From the chart above shows the change in the value of

throughput on each trial. The smallest throughput values
shown in the first experiment using size 2 Kbyte windows.
Throughput value then increased in the second experiment
using 4 Kbyte window size. In the next experiment
throughput values showed no significant changes, increase
only in small quantities only. This show has a maximum speed
of the network and can not be increased more rapidly despite
the enlarged size windows.

Figure 4. RIPv2-BGP Packet loss Graph

The above graph shows changes in the value of packet loss

on each trial. Almost the entire trial packet loss produces a
value of 0%, only one trial that gets the value of 0.02% is
the last trial with a time trial for 60 seconds. The results of
the above experiments also show that the time may affect the
value of a network packet loss.

Figure 7. OSPF-BGP Jitter Graph

From the chart above shows the change in the average value
of jitter on each trial. The jitter value is shown in a second
trial with a time of trial for 30 seconds while the smallest jitter
value shown in the third trial with a time of trial for 40
seconds. The results of the above experiments also showed
that time had no effect on the value of a network jitter,
both among internal routing protocol to internally or from
internal to external.
Figure 5. RIPv2-BGP Convergence Graph

The above graph shows the convergence value changes on

each trial. The convergence value is shown in the fourth
experiment is 33.20 seconds while the smallest convergence
value shown on the first try is 30.50 seconds.

4.2 Scenario 2 : OSPF-BGP

Figure 8. OSPF-BGP Packet loss Graph

The graph above shows changes in the value of packet loss on

each trial. The whole trial packet loss in this scenario is 0%.
 Figure 9. OSPF-BGP Convergence Graph
The graph above shows the convergence value changes on
each trial. The biggest convergence value shown in the last
experiment is 31.03 seconds while the smallest convergence
value shown on the first try is 30.33 seconds.
4.3 Scenario 3 : EIGRP-BGP
Figure 10. EIGRP-BGP Throughput Graph
From the chart above shows the change in the value of
throughput on each trial. The smallest throughput values
shown in the first experiment using size 2 Kbyte windows.
Throughput value then increased in the second experiment
using 4 Kbyte window size. In the next experiment
throughput values showed no significant changes, increased
only in small quantities only. This show has a maximum
speed of the network and can not be increased more rapidly
despite the enlarged size windows.
Figure 11. EIGRP-BGP Jitter Graph
From the chart above shows the change in the average value
of jitter on each trial. The jitter value shown in the third trial
with a time of trial for 40 seconds while the smallest jitter
value shown in the second trial with a time of trial for 30
seconds. The results of the above experiments also showed
that time had no effect on the value of a network jitter,
both among internal routing protocol to internally or from
internal to external.
Figure 12. EIGRP-BGP Packet loss Graph
The graph above shows changes in the value of packet loss
on each trial. Almost the entire trial packet loss produces
a value of 0%, only one trial that gets the value of 0.042%
is the last trial with a time trial for 60 seconds. The results of
the above experiments also show that the time may affect the
value of a network packet loss.

Figure 13. EIGRP-BGP Convergence Graph
The graph above shows the convergence value changes on
each trial. The biggest convergence value is shown in the
fourth experiment is 30.60 seconds while the smallest
convergence value shown in the second and final trial is 30.51
seconds.
V. EVALUATION
Figure 14. Throughput value comparison chart
The graph above shows the comparison of the average
throughput for each combination of routing protocol. The
greater the throughput of a network, the faster the data
transmission process and getting better. The combination of
routing protocol OSPF-BGP has the average value of the
best throughput. But the difference in value of the average
throughput-BGP routing protocol OSPF, EIGRP, EIGRP-
BGP, RIPv2- BGP is not too large. The average value of
the smallest throughput owned by routing protocol
RIPv2.
Figure 15. Jitter value comparison chart
The graph above shows the comparison of the average value
of jitter for each combination of routing protocol. A
network can be said to be good if it has a small jitter value.
The smaller the value of jitter, the more smoothly the process
of sending data. OSPF-BGP routing protocol has an average
value of jitter best and do not quarrel much with EIGRP and
RIPv2-BGP. While RIPv2 routing protocol has the largest
jitter value. The next graph the average value of packet loss
for each scenario can be seen in the following chart.
Figure 16. Packet loss value comparison chart
The graph above shows the comparison of the value of the
average packet loss for each combination of routing protocol.
A network can be said to be good if it has a value of packet
loss is small. The smaller the value of packet loss, the data
which lost during the process of data transmission are also
fewer and fewer. OSPF and OSPF-BGP routing protocol has
the best average value of packet loss. While EIGRP-BGP
routing protocol has the biggest value of packet loss.

Figure 17. Convergence value comparison chart
The graph above shows the comparison of the average value
of convergence for each combination of routing protocol.
The smaller the value faster convergence of the routing
protocol network to achieve consistency and to update the
routing table. OSPF routing protocol has the average value of
the best convergence followed by EIGRP convergence
value a little at odds with the value of the
convergence of the routing protocol OSPF. While RIPv2
routing protocol has the biggest convergence value.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on the simulation results that has been done in the
previous chapter, there are mixed results in experiments
every internal routing protocol and a combination of
internal routing protocols with external routing protocol.
Rated the best throughput is owned by a combination of
routing protocol OSPF BGP with an average throughput
value of 1043.16 Kbits/s and the smallest owned RIPv2
with the average value of throughput 1014.28 Kbits/s.
whereas the UDP packet testing, the best jitter value also
owned by OSPF BGP with an average value of 45.26 ms
jitter is the highest and is owned by RIPv2 with the average
value of the jitter is equal to 46.14 ms. For the best value
packet loss owned by OSPF and OSPF-BGP with the
average value of packet loss is 0% and the highest-owned
by EIGRP BGP with the average value of packet loss
amounted to 0.0084%. The average value of the
smallest convergence owned by third scenario, namely OSPF
with a value of 19.28 seconds. While the value of the biggest
convergence owned by RIPv2 with a value of 67.15 seconds.
The smaller the value, the faster convergence and
consistency of the network routing table updates.
VII. SUGGESTION
Based on this research can be given the following
recommendations:
1. In the next simulation, to get different results may be
using IPv6.
2. In a next research to get a different result can use
different type of router and different simulation
applications.
3. In a next research can analyze the security in the use
route redistribution.
4. To improve the accuracy of research results, further
research can be done topology with a larger scale and
more complex.
5. To improve the accuracy of research results, further
research can be done with physical router and
physical computer.
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by the Institute for Research
and Community Services (LP2M) UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta.
IX. REFERENCES
[1] V. Bahl, “Performance Issues and Evaluation
considerations of web traffic for RIP & OSPF Dynamic
Routing Protocols for Hybrid Networks Using OPNET,”
vol. 2, no. 9, pp.1–9, 2012.
[2] G. Yugianto and O. Rachman, “Router Teknologi, Konsep,
Konfigurasi, dan Troubleshooting,” 2012.
[3] D. Xu and L. Trajkovi, “Performance Analysis of
RIP , EIGRP , and OSPF using OPNET,” 2013.
[4] J. F. Kurose and K. W. Ross, “Computer Networking A
Top-Down Approach. Pearson,” 2013.
[5] Golmohammadi, “Performance Comparison of Mixed
Protocols Based on EIGRP , IS-IS and OSPF for Real-
time Applications,” vol.12, no. 11, pp. 1502–1508, 2012
[6] J. Doyle and J.D. Carroll, “CCIE Professional
Development Routing TCP/IP” (2nd ed., Vol. II)., 2009
[7] A. Fiade, “Simulasi Jaringan (1st ed.), 2013
[8] B.A. Forouzan, “Data Communications and Networking”
(Vol. IV)., 2007
[9] Jusak, “Teknologi Komunikasi Data Modern”, 2013
[10] F. Le, G.G. Xie, and H. Zhang, “Understanding Route
Redistribution. 2007 IEEE International Conference on
Network Protocols”, 81–92, 2007
[11] S.U. Masruroh, F. Robby, N. Hakiem, “Performance
evaluation of routing protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and
EIGRP in an IPv6 network”, 111-116, 2016
[12] I. Sofana, “Membangun Jaringan Komputer” (1st ed),
2013