Program Case Studies Examples

Integrating different routing protocols into a new network design for Genome4U’s lab

Research lab network topology
The figure above represents the network topology of the research lab. The presence of different teams for various projects calls for the provision of separate VLANs for each team. The idea is to separate the work environments for each group logically. From the diagrammatic representation, the Cisco switches represent the configured different VLANs. The different EIGRP routers are internal to the lab network and connect the different VLANs together. The Biology lab and the Fundraising interface lab have the two routers connecting them. In our case scenario, they are Router-EIGRP/RIP and Router-EIGRP/OSPF respectively. The file servers represent the file storage locations for volunteer’s data.
The diagram is a representation of the network routing layout for the Research and Biology labs and the Fundraising office. Router-EIGRP/RIP governs the way route redistribution takes place for EIGRP and Rip networks in the research biology labs. Likewise, Router-OSFP/RIP oversees the way redistribution of routes takes place in the EIGRP and OSFP networks between the Fundraising Office and the Research Lab.
For a network that comprises of multiple routing protocols, there must be some form of process to manage route redistributions. The protocol configured within the network helps the different network segments to learn the routes. As such, route redistribution aids in spreading routes knowledge in a standard format across all segments of the network. There must also be a redistribution of routes learned. For instance, Rip must learn the routes distributed by EIGRP in a comprehensible format and vice versa. Such calls for a standard metric specifically designed for each distribution.
For a large network, there must be some form of routing protocol to manage the routes. OSPF and EIGRP are the tow commonly used routing protocols. However, there are compromises between the two. OSPF is an open standard with support extending across multiple vendors. EIGRP, on the other hand, only has the support of Cisco products. EIGRP has an advantage over OSFP due to fast convergence in case of link that is down. Redistribution encounters some problems related to metrics. The metrics used by OSPF and EIGRP are not compatible with each other. Cost is the main metric for OSFP while EIGRP uses K-values. Additionally, the importation of routing information between routing protocols during redistribution may also create routing loops.

References

Graziani, R., & Johnson, A. (2008). Routing protocols and concepts: CCNA exploration companion guide. Indianapolis, Ind.: Cisco Press.
Molenaar, R. (2013). Introduction to Redistribution - Networklessons.com. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://networklessons.com/ip-routing/introduction-to-redistribution/
Phi, L. H. (n.d.). Cisco EBook: Chapter 7: Selecting Routing Protocols for the Network (Part03). Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://ciscodocuments.blogspot.com/2011/06/chapter-7-selecting-routing-protocols_3334.html