This week has been used to work on our topology 3 that has been covered more than other topologies, but later on each of these topology will be sufficiently covered to get convenient testing results so that the default behaviour can be can be mastered, and modified to improve the performance of each routing protocol.
EIGRP, RIPv2 and OSPF with all devices
in area 0 and next, with all devices in different area.
I.
OSPF
|
Case 1: OSPF (with only Area 0)
|
|||
|
R1#show run
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
interface Serial0/0/0
ip address 166.56.1.1 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/0/1
no ip address
no shutdown
clock rate 125000
router ospf 1
network 166.56.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
|
R2#show run
interface Serial0/0/0
ip address 166.56.1.2 255.255.255.252
interface Serial0/2/0
ip address 172.16.3.1 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/2/1
ip address 160.45.34.1 255.255.255.252
router ospf 1
network 160.45.34.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 166.56.1.0 0.0.3 area 0
|
R4#sh run
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address 170.16.30.1 255.255.255.0
duplex auto
speed auto
interface Serial0/0/0
ip address 160.45.34.2 255.255.255.252
no fair-queue
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/0/1
ip address 172.16.2.1 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/2/1
ip address 172.16.4.1 255.255.255.252
router ospf 1
network 160.45.34.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 170.16.30.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
|
R5#show run
interface Serial0/0/0
no ip address
shutdown
no fair-queue
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/0/1
ip address 172.16.4.2 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/2/0
ip address 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.252
router ospf 1
network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
|
|
R6#sh run
interface FastEthernet0/0
no ip address
no shutdown
interface Serial0/0/0
ip address 172.16.1.2 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
interface Serial0/0/1
ip address 164.24.5.1 255.255.255.252
interface Serial0/2/1
ip address 172.16.2.2 255.255.255.252
router ospf 1
network 164.24.5.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
|
R7#sh run
interface FastEthernet0/0
ip address 172.30.1.1 255.255.255.0
interface Serial0/0/0
ip address 164.24.5.2 255.255.255.252
clock rate 64000
router ospf 1
network 164.24.5.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.30.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
|
ALS1#sh run
interface Port-channel1
switchport mode trunk
flowcontrol send off
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/3
switchport access vlan 10
switchport mode access
interface FastEthernet0/4
switchport access vlan 20
switchport mode access
interface Vlan55
ip address 192.168.55.1 255.255.255.0
|
ALS2#sh run
interface Port-channel1
switchport mode trunk
flowcontrol send off
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport mode trunk
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/3
switchport access vlan 20
switchport mode access
interface FastEthernet0/4
switchport access vlan 25
switchport mode access
interface Vlan55
ip address 172.30.55.1 255.255.255.0
|
|
ALS3#show run
Same as EIGRP
|
DLS2#show run
router ospf 1
network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.30.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.30.10.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.30.15.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.30.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.30.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 172.30.55.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
|
DLS2#show run
router ospf 1
network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 192.168.15.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 192.168.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 192.168.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 192.168.55.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
|
DLS3#show run
router ospf 1
network 170.16.30.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 170.16.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 170.16.10.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 170.16.15.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 170.16.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
network 170.16.55.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
|
Testing Scenarios:
In the following steps, simple testing
tools have been used to check the path taken by a packet and see which
manipulation is the most beneficial for the routing protocol:
* CLI with "traceroute "command and "ping .... repeat" command
* Wireshark
More advanced tools will be used later
to generate specific packets.
a. Using Default
behaviour
* DLS2#traceroute
192.168.10.10 (Host connected to ALS1)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.10.10
1 10.0.0.1 0 msec 0 msec 8 msec
2 192.168.10.10 0 msec 0 msec 9
msec
* DLS2#traceroute
192.168.10.10
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.10.10
1 172.30.1.1 0 msec 0 msec 0
msec
2 164.24.5.1 17 msec 17 msec 16
msec
3 172.16.2.1 26 msec 33 msec 25
msec
4 160.45.34.1 42 msec 42 msec 42
msec
5 166.56.1.1 50 msec 59 msec 50
msec
6 192.168.1.2 59 msec 51 msec 58
msec
7 192.168.10.10 59 msec 50 msec
51 msec
DLS2#
From the above output, we notice that
the preferred path for a packet forwarded from Host connected to ALS2 to Host
connected to ALS1 is through ether channel link:
DLS2#ping 192.168.10.10 repeat 2000
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<output ommited>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent
(2000/2000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/9 ms
DLS2#ping 192.168.10.10 repeat 2000
(Port Channel disabled)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output Ommited>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
*Mar 1 02:50:46.961:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern
et0/4, changed state to down
*Mar 1 02:50:47.003:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern
et0/3, changed state to down
*Mar 1 02:50:47.011:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Port-chann
el2, changed state to down
*Mar 1 02:50:47.959:
%LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/4, changed state t
o down
*Mar 1 02:50:48.009:
%LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/3, changed state t
o down
*Mar 1 02:50:48.009:
%LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel2, changed state to
down
*Mar 1 02:50:48.009:
%OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr 192.168.55.250 on Port-chan
nel2 from FULL to DOWN, Neighbor Down:
Interface down or detached...!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output Ommited>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 99 percent (1996/2000),
round-trip min/avg/max = 1/44/143 ms
DLS2#
DLS2#ping 192.168.10.10 repeat 500
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 500, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (500/500),
round-trip min/avg/max = 109/112/135 ms
DLS2#ping 192.168.10.10 repeat 500 (R6
S0/2/1 disabled)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 500, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..U.U.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 98 percent (494/500),
round-trip min/avg/max = 109/133/160 ms
DLS2#
|
Case 2: OSPF (with only Area
100, 200 and 300)
Note: This table will show only
OSPF configuration, the rest of configurations are the same as Case 1
|
|||
|
R1#show run
router ospf 1
log-adjacency-changes
network 166.56.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 100
network 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
|
R2#show run
router ospf 1
log-adjacency-changes
network 160.45.34.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 166.56.1.0 0.0.0.3 area 100
|
R4#sh run
router ospf 1
log-adjacency-changes
network 160.45.34.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 170.16.30.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
|
R5#show run
No change (Area 0 only)
|
|
R6#sh run
No change (Area 0 only)
|
R7#sh run
router ospf 1
log-adjacency-changes
network 164.24.5.0 0.0.0.3 area 0
network 172.30.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
|
ALS1#sh run
No change
|
ALS2#sh run
No change
|
|
ALS3#show run
No change
|
DLS2 #show run
ip routing
interface Port-channel1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
interface Port-channel2
no switchport
ip address 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/3
no switchport
no ip address
channel-group 2 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/4
no switchport
no ip address
channel-group 2 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/5
no switchport
ip address 172.30.1.2 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan10
ip address 172.30.10.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan15
ip address 172.30.15.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan20
ip address 172.30.20.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan25
ip address 172.30.25.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan55
ip address 172.30.55.250 255.255.255.0
router ospf 1
network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
network 172.30.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
network 172.30.10.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
network 172.30.15.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
network 172.30.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
network 172.30.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
network 172.30.55.0 0.0.0.255 area 300
|
DLS1#show run
ip routing
interface Port-channel1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
interface Port-channel2
no switchport
ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/3
no switchport
no ip address
channel-group 2 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/4
no switchport
no ip address
channel-group 2 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/5
no switchport
ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan10
ip address 192.168.10.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan15
ip address 192.168.15.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan20
ip address 192.168.20.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan25
ip address 192.168.25.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan55
ip address 192.168.55.250 255.255.255.0
router ospf 1
network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
network 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
network 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
network 192.168.15.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
network 192.168.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
network 192.168.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
network 192.168.55.0 0.0.0.255 area 100
|
DLS3#show run
ip routing
interface Port-channel1
interface FastEthernet0/1
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/2
switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
channel-group 1 mode desirable
interface FastEthernet0/3
interface FastEthernet0/4
interface FastEthernet0/5
no switchport
ip address 170.16.30.2 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan1
no ip address
shutdown
interface Vlan10
ip address 170.16.10.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan15
ip address 170.16.15.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan20
ip address 170.16.20.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan25
ip address 170.16.25.250 255.255.255.0
interface Vlan55
ip address 170.16.55.250 255.255.255.0
router ospf 1
network 170.16.30.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
network 170.16.20.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
network 170.16.10.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
network 170.16.15.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
network 170.16.25.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
network 170.16.55.0 0.0.0.255 area 200
|
Different test scenarios have been
made, using default behaviour of the routing protocol, or modifying some of the
characteristics (bandwidth, cost)
Most of the modification have been done
on R6, R5 and R4 so that packets could be brought to choose a defined path and
check which of the combination is the fastest.
But before applying any modification,
the default interfaces status have been verified:
|
R6#sh int s0/0/0
Serial0/0/0 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is GT96K Serial
Internet address is 172.16.1.2/30
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 128 Kbit, DLY 20000 usec,
reliability 255/255,
txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
<Output omitted>
|
R6#
R6#sh int s0/2/1
Serial0/2/1 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is GT96K Serial
Internet address is 172.16.2.2/30
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1544 Kbit, DLY 20000 usec,
reliability 255/255,
txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation HDLC, loopback not set
<output omitted>
Available Bandwidth 1158 kilobits/sec
|
Testing Scenarios:
In the following steps, simple testing
tools have been used to check the path taken by a packet and see which
manipulation is the most benefique for the routing protocol.
Examples of tools used: Wireshark. CLI
(ping ... repeat, traceroute, ip route)
More advanced tools will be used later
to generate specific packets.
a. Using Default
behaviour
* R6#sh ip route
<Output omitted>
O
160.45.34.0 [110/128] via 172.16.2.1, 00:00:36, Serial0/2/1
Note: Cost = 128 to reach network
160.45.34.0 via 172.16.2.1
* R6#show ip route
(R6 s0/2/1 shutdown)
<Output omitted>
O
160.45.34.0 [110/909] via 172.16.1.1, 00:00:15, Serial0/0/0
Note: Cost = 909 to reach network
160.45.34.0 via 172.16.1.1
The first output in the next page
(MSDOS) indicates that path taken by packet using default bandwidth link R4 -
R6 (1544 kbps) and R5 - R6 (128 kbps), and R5 - R4 (1544 kbps) from Host
192.168.10.10 to host 172.30.20.20 is DLS1 - R1 - R2 - R4 - R6 - R7 - DLS2
* DSL2#ping
192.168.10.10 repeat 2000 (Default band:R4-R6 1544kbps;
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent
(2000/2000), round-trip min/avg/max = 109/112/143 ms
* DSL2#ping
192.168.10.10 repeat 2000 (R4-R6 band 64; R6 s0/0/0 shut)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.U.U.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 99 percent (1995/2000),
round-trip min/avg/max = 109/116/167 ms
b. Link R4 - R6
changed to 64 kbps
The second output indicates that
packet has changed path using DLS1 - R1 - R2 - R4 - R5 - R6 - R7 -
DLS2, preferring a faster link.
DSL2#ping
192.168.10.10 repeat 2000 (link R4-R6 band changed to 64kbps)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent
(2000/2000), round-trip min/avg/max = 134/139/185 ms
c. Changing cost from
128 to 1000 for R6 S0/2/1
* R6#sh ip route
<Output omitted>
O
160.45.34.0 [110/909] via 172.16.1.1, 00:00:51, Serial0/0/0
Note: when cost change
from 128 to 1000 for R6 s0/2/1, new path is 172.16.1.1 with cost 909
Verification of configured cost
:
R6# sh ip ospf int s0/2/1
Process ID 1, Router ID 172.16.2.2,
Network Type POINT_TO_POINT, Cost: 1000
* R6#sh ip route
(R6 s0/2/1 cost set to 1000; R6 s0/0/0 to 500 and R5 s0/0/1 to 500)
O
160.45.34.0 [110/1064] via 172.16.2.1, 00:00:09, Serial0/2/1
[110/1064] via 172.16.1.1, 00:00:09, Serial0/0/0
* DSL2#ping
192.168.10.10 repeat 2000 (R6 s0/2/1 cost changed to 1000)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output ommited)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent
(2000/2000), round-trip min/avg/max = 134/139/185 ms
* DSL2#ping
192.168.10.10 repeat 2000 (Link R5 - R6 cost = 500; R4- R5 Cost = 500)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 2000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent
(2000/2000), round-trip min/avg/max = 117/125/160 ms
Note that with the case of different
area, the ether channel failed to forward packets. Is it the true behaviour or
is it a result of misconfiguration? The question will be minded later.
d. Wireshark
Statistics summary in brief
|
2000 pings with R6 - R5
shutdown; band = 64 kbps
|
2000 ping with R6 S0/2/1 Cost
set to 1000
|
2000 ping with R6 S0/2/1 Cost =
1000; R5-R6 Cost = 500; R4-R5 Cost = 500
|
|
Time:
* First Packet: 2012-06-18 20:14:21
*Last Packet: 2012-06-18 20:19:18
* Elapsed: 00:04:57
Traffic captured:
*
Packets:
3865
* Between first and last
packet:
297.022 sec
* Avg packets/sec: 13.013
|
Time:
* First Packet: 2012-06-18 21:26:50
*Last Packet: 2012-06-18 21:31:56
* Elapsed: 00:05:05
Traffic captured:
*
Packets:
4249
* Between first and last
packet:
305.468 sec
* Avg packets/sec: 13.910
|
Time:
* First Packet: 2012-06-18 21:53:19
*Last Packet: 2012-06-18 21:58:53
* Elapsed: 00:05:34
Traffic captured:
*
Packets:
4270
* Between first and last
packet:
334.080 sec
* Avg packets/sec: 12.781
|
II. EIGRP
|
EIGRP
Note: This table will show only
EIGRP configuration, the rest of configurations are the same as OSPF
|
|||
|
R1#show run
router eigrp 20
network 166.56.1.0 0.0.0.3
network 192.168.0.0
network 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255
no auto-summary
|
R2#show run
router eigrp 20
network 160.45.34.0 0.0.0.3
network 166.56.1.0 0.0.0.3
network 172.16.3.0 0.0.0.3
no auto-summary
|
R4#sh run
router eigrp 20
network 160.45.34.0 0.0.0.3
network 170.16.30.0 0.0.0.255
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.3
network 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.3
no auto-summary
|
R5#show run
router eigrp 20
network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.3
network 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.3
no auto-summary
|
|
R6#sh run
router eigrp 20
network 164.24.5.0 0.0.0.3
network 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.3
network 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.3
no auto-summary
|
R7#sh run
router eigrp 20
network 164.24.0.0
network 172.30.0.0
no auto-summary
|
ALS1#sh run
Same as OSPF
|
ALS2#sh run
Same as OSPF
|
|
ALS3#show run
Same as OSPF
|
DSL2#sh run
router eigrp 20
no auto-summary
network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255
network 172.30.0.0
|
DLS1#show run
router eigrp 20
no auto-summary
network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255
network 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255
|
DSL3#show run
router eigrp 20
network 170.16.10.0 0.0.0.255
network 170.16.15.0 0.0.0.255
network 170.16.20.0 0.0.0.255
network 170.16.25.0 0.0.0.255
network 170.16.30.0 0.0.0.255
network 170.16.55.0 0.0.0.255
|
Testing Scenarios:
Two different testing tools have been
used to test network convergence:
* CLI with "traceroute "command and "ping .... repeat" command
* Wireshark
a.
A traceroute
command from DLS2 to host connected to ALS1 (192.168.10.10) has shown that the preferred
route for packets is through the ether channel media, the more faster link in
our network.
* DSL2#traceroute
192.168.10.10 (Host connected to ALS1)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.10.10
1 10.0.0.1 0 msec 0 msec 9 msec
2 192.168.10.10 0 msec 9 msec 0
msec
Because our network is redundant, the
port channel disabled doesn't block our packet to get to destination. But which
path will be used depend on the metric on router R6. The smallest metric will
be preferred to a higher one as shown in the routing table on router R6.
* R6#sh ip route
<Output omitted>
160.45.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 2
subnets, 2 masks
D
160.45.0.0/16 [90/2681856] via 172.16.2.1, 01:45:55, Serial0/2/1
The preferred path for the packet will
be then through R7 - R6 - R4 - R2 - R1 - DLS1.
The following command confirm this
preference
* DSL2#traceroute
192.168.10.10 (with port-channel disabled)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.10.10
1 172.30.1.1 0 msec 0 msec 0
msec
2 164.24.5.1 17 msec 8 msec 8
msec
3 172.16.2.1 34 msec 25 msec 25
msec
4 160.45.34.1 42 msec 42 msec 42
msec
5 166.56.1.1 50 msec 50 msec 59
msec
6 192.168.1.2 50 msec 50 msec 59
msec
7 192.168.10.10 51 msec 67 msec
51 msec
* DSL2#ping
192.168.10.10 repeat 10000
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 10000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent
(10000/10000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/9 ms
DSL2#
DSL2#ping 192.168.10.10 repeat 10000
(with port channel on DLS1 shut)
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 10000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to
192.168.10.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!.
*Mar 1 08:50:39.740:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern
et0/3, changed state to down
*Mar 1 08:50:39.782:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthern
et0/4, changed state to down
*Mar 1 08:50:39.791:
%LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Port-chann
el2, changed state to down
*Mar 1 08:50:40.747:
%LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/3, changed state t
o down
*Mar 1 08:50:40.789:
%LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/4, changed state t
o down
*Mar 1 08:50:40.789:
%LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface Port-channel2, changed state to
down
*Mar 1 08:50:40.806:
%DUAL-5-NBRCHANGE: EIGRP-IPv4:(20) 20: Neighbor 10.0.0.1 (
Port-channel2) is down: interface
down.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<Output omitted>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 99 percent
(9998/10000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/93/160 ms
Wireshark Statistics
Summary in brief
|
10000 pings DLS2 to Host
connected to ALS1
|
10000 pings DLS2 to Host
connected to ALS1 (port-channel disabled)
|
|
Time:
* First Packet: 2012-06-16 21:54:10
*Last Packet: 2012-06-16 21:54:48
* Elapsed: 00:00:38
Traffic captured:
* Packets: 20032
* Between first and last packet: 38.007 sec
* Avg packets/sec: 527.059
|
Time:
* First Packet: 2012-06-16 22:05:58
* Last Packet: 2012-06-16 22:22:29
* Elapsed: 00:16:30
Traffic captured:
* Packets: 20910
* Between first and last packet: 990.154
* Avg packets/sec: 21.118
|
From these statistics, we can notice
that the ether cannel link is much more faster than the redundant link.
It is able to process 527 packets per second when the redundant link need the
same time to process only 21 packets.
Note that the redundant link here is R7
- R6 - R4 - R2 - R1 - DLS1
Compared to OSPF with the
parameters parameters used (default or modified), from the Wireshark
statistics captured from these scenario, we can notice that EIGRP process in
average much more packets per second. But this result is not enough to build a
general conclusion.
More tests need to be done.
2 comments:
It is good to have consistency in the number of pings sent, say 500 each time you run the test. This will be easier for comparisons and also to repeat say 10 times to enable us to come up with a true value or picture of the speed of convergence. Let's subject the topologies to the same tests in all respects.
I am being controversial here, but you can expect the same type of comments during the presentation:
1- why is the topology so complicated? Can you justify the use of Ether-channel? Are they working at layer 3?
2- I thought that the project was about measuring the convergence of routing protocols why are workstations or layer 2 switches involved?
3 - Has anyone in the group started looking at results so far? Anything unusual?
4- what info about the convergence time are you getting out of Wireshark? I have the feeling that you are measuring the speed of the network instead of the convergence time
Feel free to contradict me on any point!
Do not loose track of the main aim of the project. If you are over complicating the topology, it will be much more difficult to interpret the results of your experiments. The experiments are just tools to help you to produce the report (final product) as described at the beginning of the semester.
Post a Comment