Authors : Sanu Momodu Kabiru; Okolai Biriyai Diripigi

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 5 - May

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3sk9jn7b

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2s3c599w

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26May1217

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This research investigates the performance and efficiency of routing protocols such as OSPF, BGP, EIGRP, and RIP. In addition, this research finds out which protocol is more efficient in different scenarios. As computer networks become more sophisticated in today's world, the performance of routing protocols becomes essential in transmitting packets efficiently and reliably, along with effective convergence and utilization of resources. Every protocol employs its algorithmic techniques; however, they differ in their approaches, ranging from the rudimentary distance vector approach of RIP to the highly scalable BGP routing protocol. Comparative Analysis Approach is used in this study. For the purposes of this experiment, it will simulate the network using Cisco Packet Tracer and evaluate parameters such as packet delivery ratio, latency, throughput, convergence time, scalability, routing overhead, etc. EIGRP emerged as the most efficient protocol with the highest packet delivery ratio, minimum latency, and effective routing. On the other hand, OSPF is considered second in effectiveness, with high reliability and scalability, making it suitable for large-scale enterprise computer networks. Despite the inefficiency of BGP for internal use within a domain, it was found to be more efficient than other protocols with regard to scalability, implementation of policies, and convergence time. Also, RIP performed poorly amongst all the tested protocols because of low scalability, convergence time, and increased latency. These findings indicate that routing protocol adoption must align with the intended objectives of an organization. Although EIGRP is the best choice for performance-oriented networks, OSPF offers an ideal protocol in terms of scalability and standardization for enterprise-level networks. BGP remains the best choice for Internet-wide routing, while RIP is recommended for educational purposes only. This study will help develop a better comprehension of how routing protocols work and provide a basis for choosing the right routing strategy.

References :

1. Alabady, S., Hazim, S., & Salih, A. (2018). Performance evaluation and comparison of dynamic routing protocols. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing.
2. Al-Momani, A., & Al-Hussien, T. (2020). Simulation and performance evaluation of RIP, OSPF and EIGRP routing protocols using NS-3. Journal of Computer Networks and Communications.
3. Alotaibi, A., Alkhaldi, M., Aljaafari, M., & Alghefaili, M. (2025). Performance comparison of routing protocols. International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology.
4. Cisco Systems. (2023). OSPF design guide. Cisco Press.
5. Cisco Systems. (2023). Routing protocol fundamentals. Cisco Press.
6. Cisco Systems. (2023). Understanding EIGRP routing protocol. Cisco Documentation.
7. Daggitt, M., & Griffin, T. (2021). Formally verified convergence of policy-rich routing protocols. arXiv.
8. Doyle, J., & Carroll, J. (2020). Routing TCP/IP Volume I (2nd ed.). Cisco Press.
9. Hadjioannou, V. (2015). Performance comparison of RIP, OSPF, IS-IS and EIGRP routing protocols. arXiv.
10. Halabi, S., & McPherson, D. (2020). Internet routing architectures (3rd ed.). Cisco Press.
11. Hedrick, C. (1988). Routing information protocol (RIP) (RFC 1058). Internet Engineering Task Force.
12. Huitema, C. (2022). Routing in the Internet (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
13. Kurose, J., & Ross, K. (2021). Computer networking: A top-down approach (8th ed.). Pearson.
14. Kurose, J. F., & Ross, K. W. (2021). Computer networking: A top-down approach (8th ed.). Pearson.
15. Luttringer, J., Bramas, Q., Pelsser, C., & Mérindol, P. (2021). Fast convergence routing techniques for inter-domain routing. arXiv.
16. Medhi, D., & Ramasamy, K. (2017). Network routing: Algorithms, protocols, and architectures (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
17. Medhi, D., & Ramasamy, K. (2020). Network routing: Algorithms, protocols and architectures. Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Perlman, R. (2000). Interconnections: Bridges, routers, switches, and internetworking protocols (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
19. Perlman, R. (2021). Interconnections: Bridges, routers and switches. Addison-Wesley.
20. Peterson, L., & Davie, B. (2022). Computer networks: A systems approach (6th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
21. Rangwala, A., Patil, B., & Patel, P. (2024). Comparative study of routing protocols. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology.
22. Rekhter, Y., Li, T., & Hares, S. (2006). A border gateway protocol 4 (BGP-4) (RFC 4271). IETF.
23. Shahid, K., Ahmad, S., & Rizvi, S. (2024). Optimizing network performance: Comparative analysis of EIGRP, OSPF and BGP in IPv6 networks. Future Internet.
24. Stewart, J. (2022). BGP4: Inter-domain routing in the Internet. Addison-Wesley.
25. Stewart, J. W. (1999). BGP4: Inter-domain routing in the Internet. Addison-Wesley.
26. Tanenbaum, A., & Wetherall, D. (2021). Computer networks (6th ed.). Pearson.
27. Tanenbaum, A. S., & Wetherall, D. J. (2011). Computer networks (5th ed.). Pearson.
28. Yousif, Y., & Elnageeb, O. (2025). Performance evaluation and comparison of RIP, EIGRP and OSPF routing protocols. European Journal of Applied Science, Engineering and Technology.