1 Jeremy Vargas NW254 June 26, 2006

Engineering Research Paper Static routing was the choice of our configuration and routing method, in that we were most successful in connecting every single router and computer together. We endured the long process of writing each and every route in order to get full connectivity. I will now state some information and arguments between two routing protocols, static routing and RIP. The first distance vector protocol was the Routing Information Protocol also known as “ RI P” .RI Pwa sde s i gn e df ora ne nvi r onme n tt h a th a donl yar e l a t i ve l ys ma l ln umbe rof machines that were connected with links that had identical characteristics [3]. RIP is still in widespread use and is the only routing protocol that UNIX machines universally understand. Every 30 seconds each RIP-enabled router sends out a RIP update message, comprising routing i nf or ma t i onf r omt h ema c hi ne ’ sr ou t i n gt a bl e[3]. This message includes the destination address of host or network, the ip address of the gateway sending the update, and metric number that indicates the distance to the destination [3]. The configuration of RIP on most routers and interfaces is somewhat simple. RIP is the easiest way to incorporate dynamic routing [1]. There are only a handful of options to consider, so RIP is a good place to start [1]. Static routes are routes to destination hosts or networks that an administrator has ma n ua l l ye n t e r e di n t ot h er ou t e r ’ sr ou t et a bl e[3]. Static routes are used to define the IP address of the next hop router and local interface to use when forwarding traffic to a specific host or destination [3]. Static routing is good where there is a temporary link or when the amount of bandwith becomes an issue, which makes it an ideal protocol for dial-up networks or point-topoint WAN networks [2]. Static routes are also very useful in that they can be implemented with

2 other protocols to provide dial backups to reach a destination when the others have failed [1]. Static routes should be used in very small networks such as 10 to 15 links total [4]. Another good thing about static routes is that they conserve bandwith because they do not cause routers to generate update traffic [1]. With a static route it does not have the capability of adjusting to changes of the network, if the router or interface fails, the route to the destination fails, and the transaction is not complete [1]. A bad idea would be to use static routing to design an entire network which would mean that you would have to enter every single route on every router for each network that they are not directly attatched to [1]. Also the time comsumption that is involved when adding or removing a router is very insufficient in that in new route would have to be written or taken away from every router which is highly impractical [1]. RIP is also has its flaws in that it is not always reliable when trying to configure the ethernet ports and the serial ports to see each other on a small network as learned from experience [4]. Although RIP is very easy to configure by enabling the RIP process then specifying which networks RIP should show, we came across problems when trying to use this protocol. This is why we in turn resorted back to the long and more tedious process of using static routes. When we used the RIP protocol we could not get full connection across the entire network that we set up. We were able to get 100% on the serial ports we networked, but when it came to the ethernet ports only a select few could see (ping) each other, which is strange, but left us with no other choice then to resort back to static routing. When we set up the static routes we were able to get full connection which in turn allowed us to set up an ftp server and share files with one another. Our over all success was contributed to the less efficient protocol of static routing.

3

Bibliography [1] Chris Lewis, Cisco TCP/IP Routing Professional Reference, Copyright ©2000 New York McGraw-Hill Professional, 0072128038 [2] Heather Osterloh, IP Routing Premier Plus, Copyright ©2002 Indianapolis, IN Pearson Education, Inc., 0768658748 [3] Terry Slattery, William Burton, Advanced IP Routing in Cisco Networks, Copyright ©2000 New York McGraw-Hill Professional, 0072128178 [4] Walter Goralski, Juniper and Cisco Routing: Policy and Protocols for Multivendor IP Networks, Copyright ©2002 New York, NY John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (UK), 0471432296