2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)

Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP in an

IPv6 Network

Siti Ummi Masruroh Fadly Robby Nashrul Hakiem

Department of Informatics, FST Department of Informatics, FST Department of Informatics, FST
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah UIN Syarif Hidayatullah UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia Jakarta, Indonesia
ummi.masruroh@uinjkt.ac.id fadly.robby11@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id hakiem@uinjkt.ac.id

Abstract—A Routing Protocol is a rule that determines how
routers can communicate with each other. The development
of modern computer networks such as the Internet makes
routing protocols increasingly required to find the best and
efficient route. This study examined the performance of
routing protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP in an IPv6
network by using GNS3 based on parameters of throughput,
jitter and packet loss. Throughput is the actual speed of a
network, the higher the throughput then the faster the data
transfer can be completed. Jitter is the difference in the
arrival time interval between packets at the destination
node. To get a better value of QoS (Quality of Service), the
value of jitter must be kept to a minimum. Packet loss is the
number of lost data packets during the data transmission
process. To get a better QoS value, the value of packet loss
must also be kept to a minimum. The results of this research
indicate that the RIPng routing protocol has the highest
throughput value, whilst a combination of OSPFv3-EIGRP
routing protocols has the smallest jitter value. Lastly, the
RIPng routing protocol has the smallest value for packet loss
Keywords- Routing Protocol; QoS; throughput; Jitter;
packet loss; Routing Redistribution; RIPng; OSPFv3;
EIGRP
I. INTRODUCTION
In large-scale networks a complex routing protocol
plays a very important role. The task of a routing protocol
is to determine the communication channels that can pass
messages from one node to another node in order to get to
the destination node in a network. The objective of an
efficient routing protocol is to determine the best path
between the source node and the destination node, and to
maintain those lines [1]. With a routing protocol,
communication between nodes can be performed on
several different networks.
Along with the increasingly rapid development of
technology, the growth of communication networks is also
getting larger. In modern communication networks such as
the Internet network, a dynamic routing protocol is used
more often than a static routing protocol. Along with the
development of the network, it requires a dynamic routing
design that can accommodate these changes without the
intervention of the network administrator when the
network develops or changes [2].
Some dynamic routing protocols can be used in a
network, such as the Open Short Path First (OSPF),
Routing Information Protocol (RIP), the Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) and the Enhanced
Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP). Each routing
protocol has its own advantages and disadvantages. The
determination and selection of routing protocols depends
on several parameters that affect the quality of a network
[3].
The growth of the Internet is very high which also
results in the depletion of the allocation of resources in
Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4). Due to the demand for
content and web-based applications that create a large
inventory, fewer and fewer IPv4 addresses are available.
IPv6 was introduced in 1994 as a solution to anticipate the
problems that existed in the address limitations of IPv4 [4].
Changes to IPv6 also encouraged the development of the
existing routing protocols to support IPv6. Some routing
protocols that support IPv6 are such as RIPng, OSPFv3,
and EIGRP.
As each routing protocol has advantages in certain
circumstances, then this research will conduct simulation
experiments of network performance by applying the
incorporation of each routing protocol to obtain a protocol
combination that has the maximum performance on the
network. It is said that the use of three or more routing
protocols can improve network efficiency [5].
This research aims to evaluate the performance of the
network using a combination of three types of dynamic
routing protocol, namely RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP that
already support IPv6 with the parameters of throughput,
jitter, and packet loss. The purpose of this evaluation is to
determine the best combination of routing protocols that
can be implemented in a computer network.
II. DISCUSSION
In this research we use simulation methodology that
consist of the following stages:
A. Problem Formulation
Increasingly complex network conditions cause a
Network Administrator to look to performing a network
design with the goal of good performance. Application of a
proper routing protocol on a network can help improve
throughput and efficiency.
The performance of a network can be measured by
several variables, namely throughput, jitter and packet loss.
The application of each routing protocol has an impact on
the performance of a network. The right combination of
routing protocols can be expected to provide optimum
performance in a network.
In [5] has been discussed a performance comparison

978-1-5090-1648-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)
of mixed protocols based on EIGRP, IS-IS and OSPF for
real-time applications, however this research uses an IPv4.
The proposed research uses an IPv6 to analyze
performance of RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP.
B. Conceptual Model
Simulations will be carried out with a maximum of
three combinations of different routing protocols. The
design of the network model will be based on real life
topology using seven routers. The design of the topology
has been split into three different routing protocol areas,
namely, Area 0, Area 1, and Area 2. The topology will be
designed by using GNS3 which is also used to conduct
simulations. The tools which are used in the design are:
1) 7 Cisco 3725 Series Router Units
2) 2 PC Units
3) 9 Connection Serial DTE / DCE’s
4) 2 Copper Straight-Through Connections
Figure 1. Draft Area Topology
C. Input Output Data
1) Input
There are three essential input attributes required,
which are Node, Bandwidth, and Window size. A node is a
network junction or connection point. Each terminal,
computer, router and other member is adjusted for the
number of routers used. The simulation used seven router
units and two PC units. The bandwidth is a measure that
indicates how much data can be passed through a network
connection. The amount of bandwidth used in this
simulation was 1 Mbits/s. The window size is the value or
the maximum size of the data that can be sent without
packet acknowledgment (confirmation). The window sizes
to be used were 2, 4, 6, 8, and 32 Kbytes.
2) Output
The output in this simulation is based on the major
issues in a joint performance analysis of routing protocols
RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP on IPv6 networks. These
issues are Throughput, Jitter and Packet Loss. Throughput
is the maximum amount of traffic that can be sent in a
second. Jitter represents the time it takes a packet of data to
be sent from the sending node and received at the
destination node. Packet loss is the percentage of the
amount of data sent compared to the data actually received.
D. Modelling
Simulation will be conducted within the seven
scenarios. Scenario 3 consists of a routing protocol
combination, namely RIPng, OSPFv3, EIGRP, RIPng-
OSPFv3, RIPng-EIGRP, OSPFv3-EIGRP, and RIPng-
OSPFv3-EIGRP.
E. Simulation
The simulation used Graphical Network Simulator 3
(GNS3) version 1.3.10, and VirtualBox version 5.0.4 that
runs on the Windows 10 operating system. The Router
3725 Series with Cisco IOS operating system that runs in
GNS3, and the operating system Ubuntu Server 14:04
Trusty Tahr running in VirtualBox as a PC. To determine
the performance of the network, the authors used version
3.0.11 Iperf applications running on the PC.
F. Verification and Validation
The verification and validation stage performed
experiments on each scenario to determine whether the
simulated network designed in the previous stages had
been run in accordance with the provisions of the Model
Conceptual phase, Input Output Data and Modelling.
G. Experimentation
There are seven scenarios to be simulated with
different routing protocols and also combinations of
routing protocols. Experiments were conducted by sending
a TCP packet under each scenario as much as five times
the size of the different windows, and UDP packets five
times at different times. So the total experiment was
performed 10 times. For the TCP packets, the window size
used was 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 Kbytes, while the time spent
for the UDP packet was 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 seconds.
The value which was output at the end of the experiment
was the throughput of the TCP packets, jitter and packet
loss in the UDP packets.
III. RESULTS
A. First Scenario
Figure 2. RIPng throughput graph
Figure 2 shows the change in the value of the
throughput for each RIPng trial. The smallest throughput
values shown in the first experiment used 2 Kbyte window
size. The throughput value then increased in the second
experiment using a 4 Kbyte window size. In the
subsequent experiments, the throughput value did not
change significantly.
Figure 3 shows the change in the value of the RIPng
jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating value. The jitter
value shown in the third trial at a time of 40 seconds was
the highest while the smallest jitter value was indicated in
the fifth trial at a time of 60 seconds.
 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)

Figure 6 shows the change in the value of the OSPFv3

jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating value. The jitter
value shown in the fourth experiment was the highest at a
time of 50 seconds while the smallest jitter value was
indicated in the fifth trial at a time of 60 seconds.

Figure 3. RIPng jitter graph

Figure 7. OSPFv3 packet loss graph

Figure 7 shows the change in the value of the OSPFv3

packet loss for each trial. The highest value for packet loss
was shown in the fifth trial at a time of 60 seconds and the
value of the smallest packet loss was shown in the first
trial at a time of 20 seconds.

Figure 4. RIPng packet loss graph

C. Third Scenario

Figure 4 shows the change in the value of the RIPng

packet loss for each trial. The highest value of the packet
loss was shown in the fourth and fifth trial at a time of 50
seconds and 60 seconds respectively. The value of the
smallest packet loss was shown in the first, second and
third trial with times of 20, 30 and 40 seconds respectively.
B. Second Scenario

Figure 8. EIGRP throughput graph

Figure 8 shows the change in the value of the EIGRP

throughput for each trial. The smallest throughput value
was shown in the first experiment using a 2 Kbyte window
size. The value of the throughput increased in the second
experiment using a 4 Kbyte window size. In the
subsequent experiments, the throughput value did not
change significantly.
Figure 5. OSPFv3 throughput graph

Figure 5 shows the change in the value of the OSPFv3

throughput for each trial. The smallest throughput value
was shown in the first experiment using a 2 Kbyte window
size. The value of the throughput increased in the second
experiment using a 4 Kbyte window size. Subsequently,
the throughput value did not change significantly.

Figure 9. EIGRP jitter graph

Figure 9 shows the change in the value of the EIGRP

jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating value. The jitter
value shown in the fourth experiment at a time of 50
seconds was the highest while the smallest jitter value was
indicated in the fifth trial at a time of 60 seconds.

Figure 6. OSPFv3 jitter graph

 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)
Figure 10. EIGRP packet loss graph
Figure 10 shows the change in the value of the EIGRP
packet loss for each trial. The highest value of the packet
loss was shown in the third trial at a time of 40 seconds.
The value of the smallest packet loss was shown in the first
and second trial at a time of 20 and 30 seconds
respectively.
D. Fourth Scenario
Figure 11. RIPng-OSPFv3 throughput graph
Figure 11 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
OSPFv3 throughput for each trial. The smallest throughput
value was shown in the first experiment using a 2 Kbyte
window size. The value of the throughput increased in the
second experiment using a 4 Kbyte window size. In the
subsequent experiments, the throughput value did not
change significantly.
Figure 12. RIPng-OSPFv3 jitter graph
Figure 12 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
OSPFv3 jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating value. The
highest jitter value was shown in the first experiment at a
time of 20 seconds while the smallest jitter value was
indicated in the fifth trial at a time of 60 seconds.
Figure 13. RIPng-OSPFv3 packet loss graph
Figure 13 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
OSPFv3 packet loss for each trial. The highest value of the
packet loss was shown in the fifth trial at a time of 60
seconds, while the value of the smallest packet loss was
shown in the first trial at a time of 20 seconds.
E. Fifth Scenario
Figure 14. RIPng-EIGRP throughput graph
Figure 14 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
EIGRP throughput for each trial. The smallest throughput
value was shown in the first experiment using a 2 Kbyte
window size. The value of the throughput increased in the
second experiment using a 4 Kbyte window size. In
subsequent experiments, the throughput value did not
change significantly.
Figure 15. RIPng-EIGRP jitter graph
Figure 15 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
EIGRP jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating value. The
jitter value shown in the fourth experiment was the highest
at a time of 50 seconds, while the smallest jitter value was
indicated in the fifth trial with a time of 60 seconds.
 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)
Figure 16. RIPng-EIGRP packet loss graph
Figure 16 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
EIGRP packet loss for each trial. The highest value of
packet loss was shown in the fifth trial at a time of 60
seconds. The value of the smallest packet loss was shown
in the first and second trial at a time of 20 and 30 seconds
respectively.
F. Sixth OSPFv3-EIGRP
Figure 17. OSPFv3-EIGRP throughput graph
Figure 17 shows the change in the value of the
OSPFv3-EIGRP throughput for each trial. The smallest
throughput value was shown in the first experiment using a
2 Kbyte size window. The throughput value increased in
the second experiment using a 4 Kbyte window size. In the
subsequent experiments, the throughput value did not
change significantly.
Figure 18. OSPFv3-EIGRP jitter graph
Figure 18 shows the change in the value of the
OSPFv3-EIGRP jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating
value. The jitter value shown in the third trial was the
highest at a time of 40 seconds, while the smallest jitter
value was indicated in the fifth trial at a time of 60 seconds.
Figure 19. OSPFv3-EIGRP packet loss graph
Figure 19 shows the change in the value of the
OSPFv3-EIGRP packet loss for each trial. The highest
value of the packet loss was shown in the fifth trial at a
time of 60 seconds. The value of the smallest packet loss
was shown in the first trial at a time of 20 seconds.
G. Seventh Scenario
Figure 20. RIPng-OSPFv3-EIGRP throughput graph
Figure 20 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
OSPFv3-EIGRP throughput for each trial. The smallest
throughput value was shown in the first experiment using a
2 Kbyte window size. The value of the throughput
increased in the second experiment using a 4 Kbyte
window size. In the subsequent experiments, the
throughput value did not change significantly.
Figure 21. RIPng-OSPFv3-EIGRP jitter graph
Figure 21 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
OSPFv3-EIGRP jitter as each trial showed a fluctuating
value. The jitter value shown in the second trial had the
highest value at a time of 30 seconds while the smallest
jitter value was indicated in the fifth trial with a time of 60
seconds.
 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)
Figure 22. RIPng-OSPFv3-EIGRP packet loss graph
Figure 22 shows the change in the value of the RIPng-
OSPFv3-EIGRP packet loss for each trial. The value of
packet loss shown in the fifth trial was the highest at a time
of 60 seconds. The value of the smallest packet loss was
shown in the first trial at a time of 20 seconds.
IV. EVALUATION
Figure 23. Throughput value comparison chart
Figure 23 shows a comparison of the average value of
throughput for each combination of routing protocols. The
RIPng routing protocol had an average value that showed
the best throughput. However the difference in the average
throughput values for the RIPng routing protocol with the
EIGRP routing protocol, RIPng-EIGRP, EIGRP and
OSPFv3-RIPng-OSPFv3-EIGRP was not too great. The
lowest average throughput was shown by the OSPFv3
routing protocol, followed by the RIPng-OSPFv3 protocol.
Figure 24. Jitter value comparison chart
Figure 24 shows a comparison of the average value of
the jitter for each combination of routing protocol. The
OSPFv3-EIGRP routing protocol had the best average
value of jitter, while the RIPng OSPFv3 routing protocol
indicated the highest jitter value.
Figure 25. Packet loss value comparison chart
Figure 25 shows a comparison of the average value of
packet loss for each combination of routing protocol. The
RIPng-EIGRP routing protocol indicated the best average
value of packet loss, while the packet loss of the OSPFv3
routing protocol had the greatest value.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the simulation results obtained, there were
mixed results in the experiments for each routing protocol
and routing protocol combinations. Comparison of the
performance of the routing protocols and the combined
routing protocols of RIPng, OSPF and EIGRP in terms of
the TCP packet throughput, the best value was obtained by
RIPng with an average throughput value of 935 Kbits/s
and the least was from OSPFv3 with an average
throughput value of 808.8 Mbits/s. For the UDP packet
testing, the best jitter value was achieved by OSPFv3
EIGRP with an average jitter value of 41 ms and the
highest jitter came from the RIPng-OSPFv3 protocol with
an average value of jitter of 60 ms. For the best value of
packet loss, this was achieved by the RIPng protocol with
an average value of packet loss of 4.4 % and the highest
was for the OSPFv3 protocol with an average value of
packet loss of 14.4 %.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Tarique, M. S. Islam, and M. A. Riaz, “Performance Analysis
of the Routing Protocols for Video Streaming Over Mobile Ad
Hoc,” vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 133–150, 2012.
[2] 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.
[3] D. Xu and L. Trajkovi, “Performance Analysis of RIP , EIGRP ,
and OSPF using OPNET,” 2013.
[4] F. Heriyanto, “Perbandingan Internet Protocol Versi 4 Dan Versi
6,” Fak. Ilmu Komputer, Univ. Sriwij., vol. 6, 2010.
[5] S. Farhangi, a Rostami, and S. 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.