Analysis and Simulation of RIP protocol using OMNET++

Ananya Zabin, Joyeeta Sen Rimpee, and Jugal Krishna Das

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Jahangirnagar University Savar, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh ananya102343@gmail.com

AbstractA network is an accumulation of nodes (wired/wireless). There exist various routing protocols for this environment. Here we present an analysis and simulation of Routing Information Protocol for wired network. The widely accepted existing routing protocols designed to accommodate the needs of such self organized networks do not address possible threats aiming at the disruption of the protocol itself. We will simulate RIP in a very small network. Using Omnet++ simulator we will analyse and simulate a dynamically changing network. Here we have taken different snapshots of our network and compared their results so that we can analyse a dynamically changing network statically.

channel delays are less than 0.0010ms. But it is hard to implement but faster for having many channels.

Index Terms Mesh, Star, Bus, Ring, Channel Delay, Queue Length.

I. INTRODUCTION Routing information protocol (RIP) is a standards-based, distance-vector, interior gateway protocol (IGP) used by routers to exchange routing information. RIP uses hop count to determine the best path between two locations. Hop count is the number of routers the packet must go through till it reaches the destination network[1]. The maximum allowable number of hops a packet can traverse in an IP network implementing rip is 15 hops. It has a maximum allowable hop count of 15 by default, meaning that 16 th is deemed unreachable. RIP works well in small networks, but it's inefficient on large networks with slow wan links or on networks with a large number of routers installed[2]. In a RIP network, each router broadcasts its entire RIP table to its neighbouring routers every 30 seconds. When a router receives a neighbours RIP table, it uses the information provided to update its own routing table and then sends the updated table to its neighbours. II. ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION Here, we are have analysed and simulated[3] RIP for following network topologies: 1. Mesh Topology 2. Star Topology 3. Bus Topology 4. Ring Topology

Fig 1: Channel delay for mesh for all connections

B. Channel Delay for Star In a star network, channel delays are between 0.0003 to 0.0008ms. All of them have an average time delay. In a star network, one router works as server and others are the terminals.

III. COMPARISON OF CHANNEL DELAY BETWEEN THE FOUR

NETWORKS

Fig 2: Channel delay for star for all connections

C. Channel Delay for Bus In a bus network, channel delays are between 0.0003 to 0.0009 ms. All of them have a average time delay for this small network.

A. Channel Delay For Mesh Here we notice that, a mesh network has too many channels because it is fully connected network. As a result

In a star network, the central router has the largest queue length. At that time other routers may have a null queue. This condition can loss a lots of data packets.

Fig 3: Channel delay for bus for all connections

D. Channel Delay for Ring In a ring network, we see that the second channel has less delay than the last one. That means, the delay varies a lot for each other.

Fig 6: Queue Length for Star

C. Queue Length for Bus In a bus network, the queue lenghs are really higher than the previous two networks. We can see that, in the graph, the queue lengths of maximum router channels have more than 7 buye.

Fig 4: Channel delay for ring for all connections Fig 7: Queue Length for Bus

IV. COMPARISON OF QUEUE LENGTH BETWEEN DESCRIBED FOUR NETWORKS A. Queue Length of Mesh The maximum queue length of mesh network is 7, that is not so large in a real network system. It happens because of its maximum avilable channels.

D. Queue Length for Ring In a ring network, there causes a rounding error due to lack of queue space and busy channels. As a result, particular queue are overstacked and others are below a reasonable range of 3 byte.

Fig 5: Queue length for Mesh

Fig 8: Queue Length for Ring

B. Queue Length for Star

V. COMPARISON OF RECEIVED PACKET BYTE LENGTH BETWEEN DESCRIBED FOUR NETWORKS A. Received packet byte length of Mesh Received packet byte rate of a mesh network is very high. From this graph we see that, the byte length is always more than 80. SO, for maximum packet receiving, mesh network is the best.

D. Received packet byte length of Ring The received packet byte length of a ring network is like the buss network. But sometimes rxBytes are very small. It is also good for a real network system but causes data loss for disable channels.

Fig 9: Received packet byte Length for Mesh

Fig 12: Received packet byte Length for Ring

B. Received packet byte length of Star The received packet byte length of a star network is very small than the mesh network. But it uses less queues and channels. Maximum received packet byte length is less than 12.

VI. COMPARISON OF TRANSMITTED PACKET BYTE LENGTH BETWEEN DESCRIBED FOUR NETWORKS A. Transmitted packet byte length of Mesh Transmitted packet byte rate of a mesh network is very high. From this graph we see that, the byte length is always more than 80. SO, for maximum packet receiving, mesh network is the best.

Fig 10: Received packet byte Length for Star

C. Received packet byte length of Bus The received packet byte length of a bus network is smaller than mesh network and greater than star network. It is good for a real network system but causes data loss for disable channels.

Fig 13: Transmitted packet byte Length for Mesh

B. Transmitted packet byte length of Star The transmitted packet length of a star network is very small than the mesh network. But it uses less queues and channels. Maximum transmitted packet byte length is less than 12.

Fig 11: Received packet byte Length for Bus

D. Transmitted packet byte length of Ring The transmitted packet byte length of a ring network is like the bus network. But sometimes txBytes are very small. It is also good for a real network system but causes data loss for disable channels.

Fig 14: Transmitted packet byte Length for Star

C. Transmitted packet byte length of Bus The transmitted packet byte length of a bus network is smaller than mesh network and greater than star network. It is good for a real network system but causes data loss for disable channels.

Fig 16: Transmitted packet byte Length for Ring

VII. CONCLUSIONS Here we have discussed about Routing Information protocol for infrastructure network. We analysed the performance of RIP protocol with different network topologies theoretically. We simulated RIP in a very small network. We used OMNeT++ simulator for our simulation. We observed different characteristics of all networks as queue length, busy vectors, transmission packet queue length, received packet queue length and channel delay for mesh, star, bus and ring topology. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] Nikola, Milanovic, Miroslaw, and Malek, Routing and Security in Mobile Adhoc Network. Elizabeth M. Royer, and C K Toh, A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad-Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks. The OMNeT++ website. [Online] Available: www.omnetpp.org

Fig 15: Transmitted packet byte Length for Bus