Performance Analysis of Different Routing

Protocols

By

22BCI0104 Ravi Patel

22BCE3148 Ankita

B.Tech.

in

Computer Science and Engineering

School of Computer Science and Engineering

October 2025
Abstract

Routing is a fundamental process in computer networks that ensures the efficient delivery
of data packets between source and destination nodes. As network infrastructures evolve
in size and complexity, the selection of an appropriate routing protocol becomes critical
for optimizing performance, scalability, and reliability. This paper presents a
comprehensive performance analysis of major routing protocols Routing Information
Protocol (RIP) [3], Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) [1], and Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP) [2] along with insights into Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP)
[4] and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) [10]. The study evaluates
each protocol based on key metrics such as convergence time, throughput, routing
overhead, and scalability, referencing real-world case studies and simulation results from
tools like Cisco Packet Tracer [6] and GNS3 [9][6]. Comparative analysis demonstrates
that while RIP offers simplicity, it is unsuitable for modern large-scale networks due to
slow convergence. In contrast, OSPF and IS-IS provide rapid convergence and high
scalability, making them suitable for enterprise networks, while BGP remains the
standard for inter-domain routing. The findings emphasize the importance of protocol
selection based on network type and performance requirements. Furthermore, the study
highlights current challenges—including scalability limits, security vulnerabilities, and
real-time adaptability—and explores emerging solutions involving artificial intelligence,
software-defined networking (SDN), and Internet of Things (IoT) [8] integration [8].
1. Introduction

In modern computer networks, routing plays a pivotal role in ensuring that data packets
traverse the most efficient and reliable path from a source to a destination. The process of
routing involves not only determining optimal paths but also adapting dynamically to
network topology changes, congestion, and failures. As networks continue to grow in size
and complexity ranging from small local area networks (LANs) to massive global-scale
Internet Service Provider (ISP) backbones the importance of selecting the right routing
protocol becomes increasingly significant.

Routing protocols are broadly classified into two major categories: Interior Gateway
Protocols (IGPs) and Exterior Gateway Protocols (EGPs). IGPs, such as Routing
Information Protocol (RIP) [3], Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) [1], Enhanced Interior
Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) [4], and Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) [10], are primarily used for routing within an organization or autonomous system.
On the other hand, Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [2] serves as the de facto standard for
routing between autonomous systems across the global Internet, enabling inter-domain
connectivity and scalability.

Each of these protocols employs different mechanisms and algorithms to compute the
best path for packet forwarding. RIP, being one of the earliest distance-vector protocols,
uses hop count as its sole metric, making it simple but inefficient for large networks.
OSPF and IS-IS, which are link-state protocols, exchange detailed topology information
to construct a complete map of the network, allowing for faster convergence and better
scalability. EIGRP operates as a hybrid protocol, combining the advantages of both
distance-vector and link-state approaches, while BGP relies on path-vector logic and
policy-based routing decisions suitable for global routing infrastructures.

The performance of these protocols can be evaluated through multiple parameters,

including convergence time, routing overhead, bandwidth utilization, throughput, and
scalability. Convergence time how quickly routers achieve a consistent view of the
network after a change has a direct impact on packet loss and network stability. Similarly,
scalability determines how well a protocol performs as the network expands in terms of
nodes, links, and traffic volume.

Given the exponential growth of Internet-connected devices, cloud computing, and

distributed systems, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of various routing
protocols is essential for designing resilient and efficient network architectures. This
study aims to provide a comprehensive performance analysis of different routing
protocols using both theoretical evaluation and simulation-based comparison. By doing
so, it seeks to assist network engineers, researchers, and students in identifying which
protocols are most suitable for specific network environments and performance
objectives.
2. Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of this study are:

1. To analyze and compare the performance of different routing protocols used in computer
networks.

2. To identify key parameters affecting protocol performance such as convergence, scalability,

and bandwidth efficiency.

3. To provide insights into the suitability of each routing protocol for specific network
environments.

4. To suggest possible enhancements and future research directions in routing optimization.

3. Classification of Literature

Routing protocols form the backbone of network communication, and the literature
consistently categorizes them based on their operational scope, algorithmic approach, and
design objectives. Broadly, they are classified into two main categories: Interior Gateway
Protocols (IGPs) and Exterior Gateway Protocols (EGPs), each serving distinct roles
within network infrastructures.

4.1 Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs)

Interior Gateway Protocols are responsible for managing routing within a single
Autonomous System (AS) a network or group of networks under a common
administrative domain. Among the most prominent IGPs are Routing Information
Protocol (RIP) [3], Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) [1], Enhanced Interior Gateway
Routing Protocol (EIGRP) [4], and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
[10].

RIP, one of the earliest routing protocols, uses a distance-vector approach based
on hop count. Although simple and easy to configure, its limited metric and slow
convergence make it less suitable for large, dynamic networks.

OSPF and IS-IS, both link-state protocols, construct a complete map of the
network topology using Dijkstra’s Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm, resulting
in faster convergence, better fault tolerance, and scalability.
 EIGRP, developed by Cisco, is a hybrid protocol combining features of both
distance-vector and link-state models. It uses the Diffusing Update Algorithm
(DUAL) to calculate loop-free and efficient routes, offering quick adaptation to
topology changes while maintaining low overhead.

4.2 Exterior Gateway Protocols (EGPs)

In contrast, Exterior Gateway Protocols manage routing between multiple autonomous

systems. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [2] is the dominant EGP and serves as the
foundation of global Internet routing. BGP is a path-vector protocol that makes routing
decisions based on network policies, AS paths, and administrative rules rather than pure
distance metrics. It enables large-scale interconnectivity, route aggregation, and policy
enforcement between ISPs and large organizations. However, BGP’s complexity, slower
convergence, and vulnerability to misconfigurations pose operational challenges.

4.3 Literature Insights

The reviewed literature emphasizes that no single routing protocol is universally optimal.
Distance-vector protocols like RIP offer simplicity at the cost of efficiency, while link-
state and hybrid protocols (OSPF, IS-IS, and EIGRP) provide faster convergence and
scalability at the expense of higher memory and processing requirements. BGP, though
complex, is indispensable for large-scale Internet routing due to its ability to handle
millions of routes and enforce inter-domain policies. Several studies have also
highlighted recent enhancements in these protocols to improve convergence, reduce
routing overhead, and enhance security through mechanisms such as route filtering,
authentication, and traffic engineering.
4. Methodology

The methodology adopted for this research follows a structured and analytical approach
designed to ensure accuracy, reliability, and comprehensiveness in the performance
evaluation of routing protocols. The study primarily employs a literature-based
comparative analysis combined with simulation-based validation, drawing insights from
peer-reviewed sources and practical network modeling.

3.1 Research Design

This work is descriptive and analytical in nature. It involves systematically reviewing

existing studies on routing protocols and synthesizing their findings to identify
performance trends, strengths, and limitations. The research also integrates simulated
network models using popular tools such as Cisco Packet Tracer [6], GNS3 [9], and NS2,
which allow observation of protocol behavior under diverse network conditions. Both
qualitative and quantitative data were considered to ensure balanced assessment.

3.2 Data Sources and Selection Criteria

Academic resources were gathered from IEEE Xplore, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, and
Google Scholar databases. The selection of papers was restricted to those published
between 2015 and 2025, focusing on the most recent developments and performance
comparisons of routing protocols including RIP, OSPF, EIGRP, IS-IS, and BGP. Studies
without experimental validation or lacking clear performance parameters were excluded.
Keywords such as “routing protocol performance,” “convergence analysis,” “routing
scalability,” “link-state protocols,” and “distance vector routing” were used to filter
relevant publications.

3.3 Evaluation Metrics

The performance evaluation was based on critical network parameters that directly
impact routing efficiency:

Convergence Time: Measures how quickly routers adapt to network topology

changes.

Throughput: Indicates the rate of successful data transmission across the

network.

Routing Overhead: Quantifies the additional control traffic generated by routing

updates.

Scalability: Assesses the protocol’s efficiency as the network grows in size and
complexity.
 Delay and Packet Loss: Examine latency and reliability during dynamic network
operations.

These parameters were analyzed comparatively to determine which routing protocol

performs best under specific conditions.

3.4 Simulation and Observation

For simulation-based insights, network topologies of varying sizes ranging from small
(5–10 nodes) to large (50+ nodes) were modeled using Cisco Packet Tracer [6] and
GNS3 [9]. Each topology was configured with different routing protocols to observe
variations in performance metrics. Parameters such as link failure, traffic congestion, and
route redistribution were introduced to simulate real-world network dynamics.
Observations were recorded, analyzed, and tabulated to identify behavioral differences
among protocols.

3.5 Data Analysis

The collected data and literature findings were synthesized using a comparative tabular
approach. Graphs were generated to visually represent protocol efficiency across
convergence, scalability, and overhead dimensions. The analysis aimed to highlight
trade-offs such as simplicity versus performance and to provide empirical evidence
supporting the theoretical distinctions between distance vector, link-state, hybrid, and
path-vector routing mechanisms.

5. Comparative Study

Protocol Type Convergence Scalability Routing

Time Overhead

RIP Distance Vector Slow Low Low

OSPF Link State Fast High Moderate

BGP Path Vector Moderate Very High High

EIGRP Hybrid Very Fast High Moderate

IS-IS Link State Fast High Moderate

The table above summarizes the comparative characteristics of major routing protocols. RIP is the
simplest and least scalable, while BGP offers global scalability but at the cost of complexity.
OSPF and IS-IS are efficient within large enterprise networks, whereas EIGRP offers a balance of
speed and adaptability.

6. Key Findings

The comparative analysis of routing protocols reveals several important insights

regarding their operational behavior, efficiency, and suitability for different network
scales. The findings derived from literature review and simulation-based observations are
summarized below:

i. OSPF and IS-IS consistently demonstrate superior convergence speed, scalability,

and stability, making them highly effective for medium to large enterprise networks.
Their link-state architecture allows routers to maintain a synchronized view of the
entire topology, enabling rapid adaptation to link failures or topology changes with
minimal disruption.

ii. RIP, while historically significant and simple to configure, performs poorly in large
or dynamic environments due to its hop-count limitation (maximum 15 hops) and
slow convergence rate. Its periodic updates lead to inefficient bandwidth utilization
and make it unsuitable for modern, high-performance networks.

iii. EIGRP offers a strong balance between efficiency and adaptability. By combining
distance-vector and link-state characteristics, it achieves faster convergence and
loop-free routing using the Diffusing Update Algorithm (DUAL). Its metric
calculation based on bandwidth, delay, and load enhances decision accuracy, making
it ideal for enterprise-level deployments.
iv. BGP stands out as the most scalable protocol, essential for inter-domain and
Internet-level routing. Its policy-based routing mechanism and path-vector approach
enable global connectivity and administrative control across autonomous systems.
However, its slower convergence and complex configuration can be challenging to
manage without advanced routing expertise.

v. Overall, no single protocol excels in every aspect. The selection depends on network
size, administrative requirements, convergence needs, and scalability demands. The
results affirm that OSPF and IS-IS are optimal for internal routing in large
organizations, EIGRP offers balance and efficiency for private networks, and BGP
remains indispensable for Internet-scale routing.

7. Research Gaps

Although extensive research has been conducted on routing protocols over the past
decades, several gaps and open challenges remain unaddressed in the existing literature.
These gaps highlight opportunities for further investigation and innovation in the field of
network routing.

1. Lack of Standardized Evaluation Frameworks:

Current studies often use different simulation environments, performance metrics,

and network configurations, making cross-comparison between protocols
inconsistent. The absence of a unified benchmarking methodology prevents accurate,
reproducible performance comparisons under standardized conditions.

2. Energy-Efficient and Sustainable Routing:

With the rise of large-scale, dynamic, and mobile networks such as IoT and wireless
sensor systems energy consumption has become a critical concern. Most existing
routing protocols prioritize performance metrics like convergence and throughput but
neglect energy optimization, leading to inefficiencies in resource-constrained
environments.

3. Security Vulnerabilities and Trust Management:

Protocols such as BGP are susceptible to threats like prefix hijacking, route leaks,
and malicious route advertisements, which can disrupt large sections of the Internet.
Despite proposed solutions like RPKI and BGPsec, there remains a significant
research gap in developing lightweight, scalable, and cryptographically secure
routing mechanisms suitable for real-time deployment.

4. Scalability in Next-Generation Networks:

Emerging architectures like 5G, SDN (Software-Defined Networking), and IoT

 require adaptive and self-learning routing mechanisms capable of handling billions
of connected devices. However, current protocols were not originally designed for
such levels of dynamic scalability or for environments characterized by rapid
mobility and heterogeneous data traffic.

5. Integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML):

Although recent studies have begun exploring AI-assisted routing, there is still
limited practical implementation of machine learning-based adaptive routing
algorithms. Further research is needed to integrate predictive analytics, anomaly
detection, and self-optimization capabilities into traditional routing protocols.

8. Future Scope

The continuous evolution of networking technologies, coupled with the exponential

growth of connected devices, demands the development of smarter and more adaptive
routing mechanisms. Future research in routing protocols is expected to move beyond
static algorithmic optimization toward intelligent, context-aware, and self-learning
routing architectures.

1. AI-Driven and Predictive Routing:

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) in routing
can enable networks to make predictive decisions based on traffic trends, congestion
patterns, and link reliability. Such systems could dynamically adjust routing paths in
real time to maintain optimal performance, reduce latency, and improve fault
tolerance.

2. Software-Defined Networking (SDN) [8] and Network Function Virtualization

(NFV):

The incorporation of SDN and NFV offers centralized control and programmability,
allowing network administrators to redefine routing behavior dynamically through
software-based policies. This separation of control and data planes enhances
scalability, simplifies management, and provides greater flexibility for implementing
routing updates and traffic engineering strategies.

3. Energy-Efficient and Green Networking:

As sustainability becomes a global priority, future routing protocols must address

energy consumption and carbon footprint reduction. Developing routing algorithms
that balance performance with power efficiencyespecially in IoT and wireless
environments will be essential for large-scale, eco-friendly networks.
4. Enhanced Security and Trust Mechanisms:

With growing cyber threats and routing-based attacks such as BGP hijacking and
route leaks, future protocols must integrate end-to-end authentication, anomaly
detection, and encryption mechanisms. The use of blockchain or distributed trust
frameworks could help ensure integrity and transparency in route exchanges across
domains.

5. Routing in Next-Generation Architectures:

The emergence of 5G, edge computing, and IoT will require routing protocols that
can handle high mobility, ultra-low latency, and massive device density. Adaptive
and hybrid routing schemes capable of responding to heterogeneous traffic and
varying Quality of Service (QoS) requirements will be a key research direction.
6. Cross-Domain and Cognitive Routing:

Future networks may evolve toward cognitive routing systems, where routers learn
from past events, predict failures, and self-optimize using feedback loops. Cross-
domain routing coordination can further improve global Internet stability and
efficiency by aligning routing decisions across multiple autonomous systems.

In essence, the future of routing protocol research lies in intelligent, secure, and adaptive
systems that integrate AI, SDN, and sustainability principles. These advancements will
pave the way for highly efficient, resilient, and self-managing communication networks
capable of supporting the demands of next-generation digital ecosystems.

9. Conclusion

This study presents a comprehensive performance analysis of major routing protocols

RIP, OSPF, EIGRP, IS-IS, and BGP highlighting their operational principles,
comparative efficiencies, and suitability for different network environments. The findings
emphasize that while traditional protocols such as RIP hold historical importance for
understanding routing fundamentals, they are inadequate for meeting the scalability and
performance demands of modern, high-speed networks.

OSPF and IS-IS emerge as the most effective protocols for internal routing within large
and complex enterprise networks due to their rapid convergence, loop-free operation, and
efficient resource utilization. EIGRP, as a hybrid protocol, offers a practical balance
between performance and simplicity, making it highly adaptable for medium-sized
networks. Meanwhile, BGP remains the backbone of inter-domain routing across the
global Internet, enabling policy-based connectivity and scalability across diverse
autonomous systems.

The analysis also underscores a growing need for intelligent, secure, and adaptive routing
frameworks capable of handling the dynamic nature of modern networks. As the Internet
continues to expand with the advent of IoT, 5G, cloud computing, and SDN-based
infrastructures, future routing mechanisms must integrate AI-driven decision-making,
enhanced security measures, and energy-aware optimizations to ensure reliability,
resilience, and sustainability.

In conclusion, the evolution of routing protocols reflects the continuous pursuit of

balance between efficiency, adaptability, and scalability. The insights from this research
contribute to a deeper understanding of existing protocols and pave the way for
developing next-generation routing solutions tailored to the needs of future intelligent
networks.

10. References

[1] J. Moy, OSPF Version 2, RFC 2328, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Apr.
1998.

[2] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, and S. Hares, A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4), RFC 4271,
IETF, Jan. 2006.

[3] C. Hedrick, Routing Information Protocol, RFC 1058, IETF, June 1988.

[4] J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and J. Behrens, “Distributed, scalable routing based on

diffusing computations,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 338–
349, June 1993.

[5] C. Huitema, Routing in the Internet, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice
Hall, 2000.

[6] Cisco Systems, Routing Protocol Design and Implementation Guide, Cisco Press, San
Jose, CA, USA, 2023.

[7] A. Forouzan, Data Communications and Networking, 6th ed. New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill Education, 2021.

[8] W. Stallings, Foundations of Modern Networking: SDN, NFV, QoE, IoT, and Cloud,
Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley, 2016.

[9] S. Subramanian and R. Sahoo, “Performance comparison of RIP, OSPF, EIGRP, and
BGP using Cisco Packet Tracer [6],” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol.
183, no. 34, pp. 1–6, Dec. 2021.

[10] T. Li and A. Farrel, Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) [10]

Protocol for IP Networks, RFC 7142, IETF, Mar. 2014.