Scribd
Upload
63 views3 pages

Routing Protocols Bellman-Ford Algorithm: Vector Routing Protocol Is One of The Two Major Classes of

Distance-vector routing protocols calculate paths using the Bellman-Ford algorithm and require routers to periodically inform their neighbors of topology changes. Compared to link-state protocols, distance-vector protocols have less computational complexity and message overhead but can suffer from the count-to-infinity problem where routes may converge to infinity. Examples of distance-vector protocols include RIP, IGRP, EGP, and BGP.

Uploaded by

pratikagarwal1990
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
63 views3 pages

Routing Protocols Bellman-Ford Algorithm: Vector Routing Protocol Is One of The Two Major Classes of

Distance-vector routing protocols calculate paths using the Bellman-Ford algorithm and require routers to periodically inform their neighbors of topology changes. Compared to link-state protocols, distance-vector protocols have less computational complexity and message overhead but can suffer from the count-to-infinity problem where routes may converge to infinity. Examples of distance-vector protocols include RIP, IGRP, EGP, and BGP.

Uploaded by

pratikagarwal1990
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

In computer communication theory relating to packet-switched networks, a distance-

vector routing protocol is one of the two major classes of routing protocols, the other
major class being the link-state protocol. A distance-vector routing protocol uses
the Bellman-Ford algorithm to calculate paths.

A distance-vector routing protocol requires that a router informs its neighbors of


topology changes periodically and, in some cases, when a change is detected in the
topology of a network. Compared to link-state protocols, which require a router to inform
all the nodes in a network of topology changes, distance-vector routing protocols have
less computational complexity and message overhead.

Distance Vector means that Routers are advertised as vector of distance and direction.
'Direction' is represented by next hop address and exit interface, whereas 'Distance'
uses metrics such as hop count.

Routers using distance vector protocol do not have knowledge of the entire path to a
destination. Instead DV uses two methods:

1. Direction in which or interface to which a packet should be forwarded.


2. Distance from its destination.

Examples of distance-vector routing protocols include Routing Information Protocol


Version 1 & 2,RIPv1 and RIPv2 and IGRP. EGP and BGP are not pure distance-vector
routing protocols because a distance-vector protocol calculates routes based only on
link costs whereas in BGP, for example, the local route preference value takes priority
over the link cost.

Routing is the task of finding a path from a sender to a desired destination. In the IP
"Catenet model" this reduces primarily to a matter of finding gateways between
networks. As long as a message remains on a single network or subnet, any routing
problems are solved by technology that is specific to the network. For example, the
Ethernet and the ARPANET each define a way in which any sender can talk to any
specified destination within that one network. IP routing comes in primarily when
messages must go from a sender on one such network to a destination on a different
one. In that case, the message must pass through gateways connecting the networks. If
the networks are not adjacent, the message may pass through several intervening
networks, and the gateways connecting them. Once the message gets to a gateway
that is on the same network as the destination, that network's own technology is used to
get to the destination.

Throughout this section, the term "network" is used generically to cover a single
broadcast network (e.g., an Ethernet), a point to point line, or the ARPANET. The critical
point is that a network is treated as a single entity by IP. Either no routing is necessary
(as with a point to point line), or that routing is done in a manner that is transparent to
IP, allowing IP to treat the entire network as a single fully-connected system (as with an
Ethernet or the ARPANET). Note that the term "network" is used in a somewhat
different way in discussions of IP addressing. A single IP network number may be
assigned to a collection of networks, with "subnet" addressing being used to describe
the individual networks. In effect, we are using the term "network" here to refer to
subnets in cases where subnet addressing is in use.

Limitations:

Count-to-infinity problem
The Bellman-Ford algorithm does not prevent routing loops from happening and suffers
from the count-to-infinity problem. The core of the count-to-infinity problem is that if A
tells B that it has a path somewhere, there is no way for B to know if the path has B as a
part of it. To see the problem clearly, imagine a subnet connected like as A-B-C-D-E-F,
and let the metric between the routers be "number of jumps". Now suppose that A goes
down (out of order). In the vector-update-process B notices that the route to A, which
was distance 1, is down - B does not receive the vector update from A. The problem is,
B also gets an update from C, and C is still not aware of the fact that A is down - so it
tells B that A is only two jumps from C (C to B to A) , which is false. This slowly
propagates through the network until it reaches infinity (in which case the algorithm
corrects itself, due to the "Relax property" of Bellman Ford).
Partial solutions:
RIP uses Split Horizon with Poison Reverse technique to reduce the chance of forming
loops and uses a maximum number of hops to counter the 'count-to-infinity' problem.
These measures avoid the formation of routing loops in some, but not all, cases. The
addition of a hold time (refusing route updates for a few minutes after a route retraction)
avoids loop formation in virtually all cases, but causes a significant increase in
convergence times.

A number of loop-free distance vector protocols, such as EIGRP and DSDV, have been
developed. These avoid loop formation in all cases, but suffer from increased
complexity, and their deployment has been slowed down by the success of link-state
routing protocols such as OSPF.

You might also like