Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
Learn more
Categories
5G
Security
Accessories
Add and Drop Multiplexer
Analogue PSTN Switching
Data Routing
Data Switching
Digital PBX
Digital Voice Switching
DSLAM
Energy
FTTX
GSM-2G
GSM-3G
Industrial Automation
IP Phone
LTE
Microwave
Optical Data transmission Equipment
PDH/SDH
RF Module
Test Equipment
W-CDMA
Video Streaming
Voice/Data Networking Products
What is a better routing protocol OSPF or EIGRP and why?
Wednesday, November 25, 2020
Both OSPF and EIGRP are Dynamic Routing Protocols. Dynamic routing protocols allow routers to select the best path according to real-time logical network layout changes. The main feature of dynamic routing protocol is its ability to re-route traffic when more optimal paths become available or when links along the most optimal path fail.
The most popular dynamic routing protocols are RIP, OSPF and EIGRP.
Among above, RIP is nearly obsolete due to its inefficiency in scalability and convergence time.
EIGRP is considered by many network engineers as the best choice for private networks. However, EIGRP can only work on Cisco routers as it is a Cisco proprietary protocol. Although Cisco opened EIGRP to other vendors in 2013, the advanced features are still maintained and controlled by Cisco. Therefore, it is predicted by many that EIGRP will end up fading away.
OSPF has a clear advantage in hop count, convergence time and load balancing, but it is rather difficult to configure. Other than that, OSPF is not suitable for routing across the internet.
Below is a chart that presents the differences between OSPF and EIGRP.
|
Parameters |
OSPF |
EIGRP |
|
Stands for |
Open Shortest Path First |
Enhanced Interior Gateway Protocol |
|
Protocol type |
Link-state |
Hybrid distance-vector |
|
Algorithm |
Dijkstra link state () |
DUAL distance vector (composite metric) |
|
CPU usage |
Require high CPU and memory |
Lower CPU and memory needs |
|
Convergence Time |
Slow convergence with the default timers |
Extremely fast with feasible Successor |
|
Design |
Requires hierarchically thinking from the backbone area to normal areas |
No planning requirement |
|
Suitable application |
WAN, IGP. data centre or cloud-based solution, ring topology |
DC network, hub and spoke |
|
Function & support |
Automatic summary, manual configuration, unequal path load balancing |
Class routing, VLSM and load balancing |
|
Scalability |
Large to very large networks |
Both big and small networks |
|
Routing metrics |
Least total cost in interface bandwidth |
Combination of bandwidth, reliability, load and delay. |
|
Administrative distance |
110 |
90 |
|
Updates |
Flooding as needed and periodically to a multicast address |
Updates and queries as needed to a multicast address |
|
Configuration |
Difficult |
Simple but no provision of auto-summary |
|
Loop prevention |
Full knowledge of topology |
Split horizon and DUAL |
|
Filtering and summarization |
Only on ASBRs or ABRs |
Possible anywhere in the network |
|
Standard |
Open |
CISCO |
|
Year |
1991 |
1992 |
|
Summary |
Good performance overall, but not suitable for routing internet |
Flexible and good performance, but soon fading away due to incompatibility |
In a complex network, you may have multiple routing protocols operating simultaneously. Telecom Easy supplies data switch that supports full IPv4/IPv6 routing such as RIP/OSPF/BGP/ECMP routing protocol. Know more about routers and switches, please contact sales@telecomeasy.com.
Leave your comment