Scribd
Upload
7 views

Lecture Notes 5 - Routing

Uploaded by

chinnianu668
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views

Lecture Notes 5 - Routing

Uploaded by

chinnianu668
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

VI.

ROUTING

(a) General Concepts

- "routing"  determination of suitable (i.e., least cost)


path from a source to every destination (i.e., which
nodes/switches/routers are in path)

- "routing protocol"  nodes exchange information to


ensure consistent understanding of paths

- "routing table"  list of destination and next hop/link in


best path (i.e., least cost or "shortest")

- "routing algorithm"  takes information exchanged


between nodes (using routing protocol) and updates
routing table for best paths

- centralized routing  central processor collects


information about links (status, capacity, load),
derives routing table, and distributes routing table

distributed routing  nodes exchange information and


each establishes routing table (all routing tables must
be consistent), used in Internet and ATM

- dynamic routing  routes depend on current network


state (i.e., failed links, heavily loaded nodes and links
can be avoided), very complex, can lead to instability

ROUTING 1
static routing  network state ignored

- two approaches to distributed routing of packets in


Internet and ATM networks

(1) distance-vector routing


(2) link-state routing

- both approaches allow node to know perceived cost of


reaching each neighbour

 costs could include factors such as link capacity, link


load, queuing delay, packet charge, etc.

- both approaches allow nodes to make global routing


decisions (i.e., next hop in best path for any
destination)

- conceptually:

distance-vector  node tells neighbour distance to


every other node in network

link-state  node tells every other node


distance to its neighbours

ROUTING 2
(b) Distance-Vector Routing

- assume node knows identity of every other node in


network

- node keeps table of cost to all nodes  "distance vector"

- periodically DV distributed to all neighbours

- when node A receives DV from node B, which contains


cost from B to C, if cost of ABC less than current
cost of AC, then cost updated and routing table
updated so that next hop on best path from A to C is
AB

- gradually information spreads through network and all


nodes will have consistent best path information

Example

ROUTING 3
- problem: count-to-infinity

- hop count keeps increasing and packets destined to C can


be caught looping between A and B  congestion

- one approach: include route information to distance vector


updates  adds overhead in exchanges

eg. at *, A would realize that B thinks A has a route

ROUTING 4
(c) Link-State Routing

- all link costs in network distributed to all nodes which


then use some algorithm to compute least cost path

- to disseminate link costs, each node creates link-state


packets (LSPs) and sends to each neighbouring node
when link cost changes

 when a node receives an LSP, it updates routing table


and automatically sends LSP out on all links except
link on which it arrived  "flooding"

 eventually LSP will get to all nodes in network

- typical least cost algorithm is Dijkstra's algorithm and


must be implemented in all nodes (could also use
other least cost algorithms but complexity of Dijkstra's
algorithm is less)

Dijkstra's Algorithm:

notation:

ROUTING 5
pseudo-code: See handout.

Example: See handout.

- note that all nodes implement Dijkstra's algorithm to


determine next hop in path

 one node is only responsible for next hop and does


not need to store entire path

(d) Comparison of Distance-Vector and Link-State


Approaches

- LS tends to converge after a change more rapidly than DV

- LS floods network with LSPs, increasing congestion

- LS requires complexity to ensure that proper LSP are used


to update routing table (i.e., do not want old LSP to
affect routing table)

- DV requires less memory in nodes because entire network


topology is not required as in LS

 conclusion: both are used but LS tends to be preferred

ROUTING 6
(e) Hierarchical Routing

- for a large network of millions of users (eg. Internet), size


of routing tables and shortest path algorithm execution
time become prohibitively large

- also for a network of millions of links, flooding entire


network as link costs vary would grind network to a
halt

- solution: hierarchical routing

- each autonomous region could use a different routing


protocol and strategy (LS or DV)

- internal routing protocols can be different than external


routing protocol (i.e., between gateways)

ROUTING 7

You might also like