Project progress:File transfer TFTP server

A file of 2 MB (chap.ppt) has been copied from a TFTP server (PC connected to ALS2 with IP address 172.30.20.20)  to the flash of switch DLS1 using RIPv2, EIGRP and OSPF.
The following topology has been used for this experimentation:

The results have been surprising as it will be explain case to case:

Scenario 1: Using default behaviour of topology
--------------------------------------------------

RIPv2	Test 1: ----------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash: Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 31.508 secs (67031 bytes/sec)
	Test 2 -------------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:  Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 31.667 secs (66694 bytes/sec)
EIGRP	Test 1: --------------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:    Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 30.980 secs (68173 bytes/sec)
	Test 2: ---------------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:     Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 31.541 secs (66960 bytes/sec)
OSPF	Test1: ----------------------------------------------------------  DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:       Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 31.575 secs (66888 bytes/sec)
	Test 2: ---------------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:      (Test 2) Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 31.029 secs (68065 bytes/sec)

A shown in the above results, the packet has been transferred through the Etherchannel link which is the fastest and the shortest link compared to the link via routers.
The expectation was confirm that EIGRP has the highest rate compared to others topology, but surprisingly the rate was almost the same in all cases.

Scenario 2: Blocking Etherchannel (port-channel 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------

RIPv2	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:  Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 1279.682 secs (1650 bytes/sec)
EIGRP	Test1: --------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:      Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 1279.707 secs (1650 bytes/sec)
	Test 2: ---------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:      Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 1279.775 secs (1650 bytes/sec)
OSPF	Test 1 ------------------------------------------------ DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:      (Test 3) Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 1280.043 secs (1650 bytes/sec)
	Test 2 ---------------------------------------------------- DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:      (Test 4) Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 1279.724 secs (1650 bytes/sec)

As shown in the above results, the transfer has take much longer than the one using the Etherchannel link.
But this didn't change that the transfer rate is almost the same for the 3 protocols.

The following shows the path taken by the packet in this case:

DLS1#traceroute 172.30.20.20  (Path takenby packet when port-channel 2 disabled)

Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 172.30.20.20

  1 192.168.1.1 0 msec 8 msec 0 msec
  2 166.56.1.2 8 msec 16 msec 9 msec
  3 160.45.34.2 33 msec 26 msec 33 msec
  4 172.16.2.2 42 msec 42 msec 34 msec
  5 164.24.5.2 58 msec 59 msec 50 msec
  6 172.30.1.2 59 msec 59 msec 50 msec
  7 172.30.20.20 59 msec 59 msec 50 msec

Scenario 3: Blocking Etherchannel during transfer
------------------------------------------------------------

 

RIPv2	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash: Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !! *Mar  1 05:59:42.822: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/4, changed state to down <Output omitted> *Mar  1 05:59:44.072: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel2, changed state to down... [timed out] %Error reading tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt (Timed out)
EIGRP	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash: Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !!! *Mar  1 01:37:50.230: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/3, changed state to down <Output Omitted> *Mar  1 01:37:51.488: %DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: EIGRP-IPv4:(20) 20: Neighbor 10.0.0.2 ( Port-channel2) is down: interface down... [timed out] %Error reading tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt (Timed out)
OSPF	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash: *Mar  1 03:12:29.225: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 172.30.55.250 on Port-chann el2 from LOADING to FULL, Loading Done Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via Port-channel2): !! *Mar  1 03:12:46.086: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/3, changed state to down <Output Omitted> *Mar  1 03:12:47.135: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 172.30.55.250 on Port-chann el2 from FULL to DOWN, Neighbor Down: Interface down or detached... [timed out] %Error reading tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt (Timed out)

               

 From these outputs, we can notice that the packet has been dropped in all protocols.

The routers couldn't adapt to topology change, they couldn't relearn a new path 

Scenario 4: Etherchannel reenabled during tranfer

---------------------------------------------------------

RIPv2	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash: Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): ! *Mar  1 06:15:15.711: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/3, changed state t o up *Mar  1 06:15:15.836: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/4, changed state t o up *Mar  1 06:15:16.717: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/3, changed state to up *Mar  1 06:15:16.843: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/4, changed state to up *Mar  1 06:15:17.640: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel2, changed state to up *Mar  1 06:15:18.647: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Port-chann el2, changed state to up!!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 110.654 secs (19087 bytes/sec)
EIGRP	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash: Destination filename [chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !! *Mar  1 01:43:59.857: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/4, changed state t o up *Mar  1 01:43:59.941: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/3, changed state t o up *Mar  1 01:44:00.721: %DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: EIGRP-IPv4:(20) 20: Neighbor 10.0.0.2 ( Port-channel2) is up: new adjacency *Mar  1 01:44:00.948: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/3, changed state to up *Mar  1 01:44:01.694: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/4, changed state to up *Mar  1 01:44:01.770: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel2, changed state to up *Mar  1 01:44:02.776: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Port-chann el2, changed state to up!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 200.446 secs (10537 bytes/sec)
OSPF	DLS1#copy tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt flash:. Destination filename [./chap.ppt]? Accessing tftp://172.30.20.20/chap.ppt... Loading chap.ppt from 172.30.20.20 (via FastEthernet0/5): !! *Mar  1 03:18:40.337: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/3, changed state t o up *Mar  1 03:18:40.547: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/4, changed state t o up *Mar  1 03:18:41.344: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/3, changed state to up *Mar  1 03:18:41.553: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern et0/4, changed state to up *Mar  1 03:18:42.250: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel2, changed state to up *Mar  1 03:18:43.256: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Port-chann el2, changed state to up *Mar  1 03:19:27.263: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 172.30.55.250 on Port-chann el2 from LOADING to FULL, Loading Done!!!!!!! [OK - 2112000 bytes] 2112000 bytes copied in 245.963 secs (8587 bytes/sec)

               

Packet has been transferred with port-channel 2 disabled on DLS2. During transfer, port-channel 2

has been reenabled.

Packet changed the path and took the fastest path (Etherchannel)

Note that the difference on the transfer rate on the 3 routnng protocols is only due to the difference of haw fast the Etherchannel has been reenalbled, not to the fact that one routing could be faster the the others.

Note that OSPF with different area (area 100 and 200 has been also tested with the same result as the other protocols