Routing 1

Routing
Routing is the process of selecting paths in a network along which to send network traffic. Routing is performed for
many kinds of networks, including the telephone network (Circuit switching) , electronic data networks (such as the
Internet), and transportation networks. This article is concerned primarily with routing in electronic data networks
using packet switching technology.
In packet switching networks, routing directs packet forwarding, the transit of logically addressed packets from their
source toward their ultimate destination through intermediate nodes, typically hardware devices called routers,
bridges, gateways, firewalls, or switches. General-purpose computers can also forward packets and perform routing,
though they are not specialized hardware and may suffer from limited performance. The routing process usually
directs forwarding on the basis of routing tables which maintain a record of the routes to various network
destinations. Thus, constructing routing tables, which are held in the router's memory, is very important for efficient
routing. Most routing algorithms use only one network path at a time, but multipath routing techniques enable the
use of multiple alternative paths.
Routing, in a more narrow sense of the term, is often contrasted with bridging in its assumption that network
addresses are structured and that similar addresses imply proximity within the network. Because structured addresses
allow a single routing table entry to represent the route to a group of devices, structured addressing (routing, in the
narrow sense) outperforms unstructured addressing (bridging) in large networks, and has become the dominant form
of addressing on the Internet, though bridging is still widely used within localized environments.

Delivery semantics

Routing Schemes

anycast

broadcast

multicast

unicast
Routing 2

geocast

Routing schemes differ in their delivery semantics:

• unicast delivers a message to a single specified node;
• broadcast delivers a message to all nodes in the network;
• multicast delivers a message to a group of nodes that have expressed interest in receiving the message;
• anycast delivers a message to any one out of a group of nodes, typically the one nearest to the source.
Unicast is the dominant form of message delivery on the Internet, and this article focuses on unicast routing
algorithms.

Topology distribution
Small networks may involve manually configured routing tables (static routing) or non-adaptive routing, while larger
networks involve complex topologies and may change rapidly, making the manual construction of routing tables
unfeasible. Nevertheless, most of the public switched telephone network (PSTN) uses pre-computed routing tables,
with fallback routes if the most direct route becomes blocked (see routing in the PSTN). Adaptive routing or
dynamic routing attempts to solve this problem by constructing routing tables automatically, based on information
carried by routing protocols, and allowing the network to act nearly autonomously in avoiding network failures and
blockages.
For (static routing) or Non-Adaptive routing there is no algorithm, and is manually engineered. The advantage of this
routing type is maximum computing resources are saved but are conditioned. Networks have to be prepared for
disaster, by additional planning. For larger networks, static routing is avoided.
Examples for (Dynamic routing) or Adaptive routing algorithms are Routing Information Protocol(RIP), Open
Shortest Path First(OSPF). Dynamic routing dominates the Internet. However, the configuration of the routing
protocols often requires a skilled touch; one should not suppose that networking technology has developed to the
point of the complete automation of routing.

Distance vector algorithms

Distance vector algorithms use the Bellman-Ford algorithm. This approach assigns a number, the cost, to each of the
links between each node in the network. Nodes will send information from point A to point B via the path that
results in the lowest total cost (i.e. the sum of the costs of the links between the nodes used).
The algorithm operates in a very simple manner. When a node first starts, it only knows of its immediate neighbours,
and the direct cost involved in reaching them. (This information, the list of destinations, the total cost to each, and
the next hop to send data to get there, makes up the routing table, or distance table.) Each node, on a regular basis,
sends to each neighbour its own current idea of the total cost to get to all the destinations it knows of. The
neighbouring node(s) examine this information, and compare it to what they already 'know'; anything which
represents an improvement on what they already have, they insert in their own routing table(s). Over time, all the
nodes in the network will discover the best next hop for all destinations, and the best total cost.
When one of the nodes involved goes down, those nodes which used it as their next hop for certain destinations
discard those entries, and create new routing-table information. They then pass this information to all adjacent nodes,
which then repeat the process. Eventually all the nodes in the network receive the updated information, and will then
discover new paths to all the destinations which they can still "reach".
Routing 3

Link-state algorithms
When applying link-state algorithms, each node uses as its fundamental data a map of the network in the form of a
graph. To produce this, each node floods the entire network with information about what other nodes it can connect
to, and each node then independently assembles this information into a map. Using this map, each router then
independently determines the least-cost path from itself to every other node using a standard shortest paths algorithm
such as Dijkstra's algorithm. The result is a tree rooted at the current node such that the path through the tree from
the root to any other node is the least-cost path to that node. This tree then serves to construct the routing table,
which specifies the best next hop to get from the current node to any other node.

Optimized Link State Routing algorithm

A link-state routing algorithm - optimized for mobile ad-hoc networks is the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol
(OLSR).[1] OLSR is proactive, it uses Hello and Topology Control (TC) messages to discover and disseminate link
state information into the mobile ad-hoc network. Using Hello messages each node discovers 2-hop neighbor
information and elects a set of multipoint relays (MPRs). MPRs makes OLSR unique from other link state routing
protocols. Individual nodes use the topology information to compute next hop paths regard to all nodes in the
network utilising shortest hop forwarding paths.

Path vector protocol

Distance vector and link state routing are both intra-domain routing protocols. They are used inside an autonomous
system, but not between autonomous systems. Both of these routing protocols become intractable in large networks
and cannot be used in Inter-domain routing. Distance vector routing is subject to instability if there are more than a
few hops in the domain. Link state routing needs huge amount of resources to calculate routing tables. It also creates
heavy traffic because of flooding.
Path vector routing is used for inter-domain routing. It is similar to distance vector routing. In path vector routing we
assume there is one node (there can be many) in each autonomous system which acts on behalf of the entire
autonomous system. This node is called the speaker node. The speaker node creates a routing table and advertises it
to neighboring speaker nodes in neighboring autonomous systems. The idea is the same as distance vector routing
except that only speaker nodes in each autonomous system can communicate with each other. The speaker node
advertises the path, not the metric of the nodes, in its autonomous system or other autonomous systems. Path vector
routing is discussed in RFC 1322; the path vector routing algorithm is somewhat similar to the distance vector
algorithm in the sense that each border router advertises the destinations it can reach to its neighboring router.
However, instead of advertising networks in terms of a destination and the distance to that destination, networks are
advertised as destination addresses and path descriptions to reach those destinations. A route is defined as a pairing
between a destination and the attributes of the path to that destination, thus the name, path vector routing, where the
routers receive a vector that contains paths to a set of destinations. The path, expressed in terms of the domains (or
confederations) traversed so far, is carried in a special path attribute that records the sequence of routing domains
through which the reachability information has passed.
Routing 4

Comparison of routing algorithms

Distance-vector routing protocols are simple and efficient in small networks, and require little, if any management.
However, distance-vector algorithms do not scale well (due to the count-to-infinity problem[2] ), have poor
convergence properties and are based on a 'hop count' metric rather than a 'link-state' metric thus they ignore
bandwidth (a major drawback) when calculating the best path.
This has led to the development of more complex but more scalable algorithms for use in large networks. Interior
routing mostly uses link-state routing protocols such as OSPF and IS-IS.
A more recent development is that of loop-free distance-vector protocols (e.g. EIGRP). Loop-free distance-vector
protocols are as robust and manageable as distance-vector protocols, while avoiding counting to infinity and hence
having good worst-case convergence times.

Path selection
Path selection involves applying a routing metric to multiple routes, in order to select (or predict) the best route.
In the case of computer networking, the metric is computed by a routing algorithm, and can cover such information
as bandwidth, network delay, hop count, path cost, load, MTU, reliability, and communication cost (see e.g. this
survey [3] for a list of proposed routing metrics). The routing table stores only the best possible routes, while
link-state or topological databases may store all other information as well.
Because a routing metric is specific to a given routing protocol, multi-protocol routers must use some external
heuristic in order to select between routes learned from different routing protocols. Cisco's routers, for example,
attribute a value known as the administrative distance to each route, where smaller administrative distances indicate
routes learned from a supposedly more reliable protocol.
A local network administrator, in special cases, can set up host-specific routes to a particular machine which
provides more control over network usage, permits testing and better overall security. This can come in handy when
required to debug network connections or routing tables.

Multiple agents
In some networks, routing is complicated by the fact that no single entity is responsible for selecting paths: instead,
multiple entities are involved in selecting paths or even parts of a single path. Complications or inefficiency can
result if these entities choose paths to optimize their own objectives, which may conflict with the objectives of other
participants.
A classic example involves traffic in a road system, in which each driver picks a path which minimizes their own
travel time. With such routing, the equilibrium routes can be longer than optimal for all drivers. In particular, Braess
paradox shows that adding a new road can lengthen travel times for all drivers.
In another model, for example used for routing automated guided vehicles (AGVs) on a terminal, reservations are
made for each vehicle to prevent simultaneous use of the same part of an infrastructure. This approach is also
referred to as context-aware routing.[4]
The Internet is partitioned into autonomous systems (ASs) such as internet service providers (ISPs), each of which
has control over routes involving its network, at multiple levels. First, AS-level paths are selected via the BGP
protocol, which produces a sequence of ASs through which packets will flow. Each AS may have multiple paths,
offered by neighboring ASs, from which to choose. Its decision often involves business relationships with these
neighboring ASs,[5] which may be unrelated to path quality or latency. Second, once an AS-level path has been
selected, there are often multiple corresponding router-level paths, in part because two ISPs may be connected in
multiple locations. In choosing the single router-level path, it is common practice for each ISP to employ hot-potato
routing: sending traffic along the path that minimizes the distance through the ISP's own network—even if that path
Routing 5

lengthens the total distance to the destination.

Consider two ISPs, A and B, which each have a presence in New York, connected by a fast link with latency 5 ms;
and which each have a presence in London connected by a 5 ms link. Suppose both ISPs have trans-Atlantic links
connecting their two networks, but A's link has latency 100 ms and B's has latency 120 ms. When routing a message
from a source in A's London network to a destination in B's New York network, A may choose to immediately send
the message to B in London. This saves A the work of sending it along an expensive trans-Atlantic link, but causes
the message to experience latency 125 ms when the other route would have been 20 ms faster.
A 2003 measurement study of Internet routes found that, between pairs of neighboring ISPs, more than 30% of paths
have inflated latency due to hot potato routing, with 5% of paths being delayed by at least 12 ms. Inflation due to
AS-level path selection, while substantial, was attributed primarily to BGP's lack of a mechanism to directly
optimize for latency, rather than to selfish routing policies. It was also suggested that, were an appropriate
mechanism in place, ISPs would be willing to cooperate to reduce latency rather than use hot-potato routing.[6]

Route Analytics
As the Internet and IP networks become mission critical business tools, there has been increased interest in
techniques and methods to monitor the routing posture of networks. Incorrect routing or routing issues cause
undesirable performance degradation, flapping and/or downtime. Monitoring routing in a network is achieved using
Route analytics tools and techniques

See also

Routing algorithms and techniques

• inter domain routing algorithm
• intra domain routing algorithm
• Adaptive routing
• Alternative-path routing
• Deflection routing
• Edge Disjoint Shortest Pair Algorithm
• Dijkstra's algorithm
• Fuzzy routing
• Geographic routing
• Heuristic routing
• Hierarchical routing
• IP Forwarding Algorithm
• Multipath routing
• Overlay network routing schemes
• Key-based routing (KBR)
• Decentralized object location and routing (DOLR)
• Group anycast and multicast (CAST)
• Distributed hash table (DHT)
• Path computation element (PCE)
• Policy-based routing
• Quality of Service in routing
• Static routing
• Backward learning routing
Routing 6

Routing in specific networks

• Route assignment in transportation networks
• National Routeing Guide: passenger routing in the UK rail network
• Routing in the PSTN
• Small world routing - the internet is approximately a small world network

Routing protocols
• Routing protocol
• Classless inter-domain routing (CIDR)
• MPLS routing
• ATM routing
• RPSL
• RSMLT
• Routing in optical mesh networks

Alternative methods for network data flow

• Peer-to-peer
• Network coding

Router Software and Suites

• GNU Zebra
• Quagga (software)

Router Platforms
• Network operating system - NOS
• XORP - the eXtensible Open Router Platform
• Junos
• Cisco IOS
• NX-OS
• CatOS

References
[1] RFC 3626
[2] Count-To-Infinity Problem (http:/ / wiki. uni. lu/ secan-lab/ Count-To-Infinity+ Problem. html)
[3] http:/ / rainer. baumann. info/ public/ tik262. pdf
[4] Jonne Zutt, Arjan J.C. van Gemund, Mathijs M. de Weerdt, and Cees Witteveen (2010). Dealing with Uncertainty in Operational Transport
Planning (http:/ / www. st. ewi. tudelft. nl/ ~mathijs/ publications/ intinfra09. pdf). In R.R. Negenborn and Z. Lukszo and H. Hellendoorn
(Eds.) Intelligent Infrastructures, Ch. 14, pp. 355-382. Springer.
[5] Matthew Caesar and Jennifer Rexford. BGP routing policies in ISP networks (http:/ / www. cs. princeton. edu/ ~jrex/ papers/ policies. pdf).
IEEE Network Magazine, special issue on Interdomain Routing, Nov/Dec 2005.
[6] Neil Spring, Ratul Mahajan, and Thomas Anderson. Quantifying the Causes of Path Inflation (http:/ / www. cs. washington. edu/ research/
networking/ rocketfuel/ papers/ sigcomm2003. pdf). Proc. SIGCOMM 2003.

• Ash, Gerald (1997). Dynamic Routing in Telecommunication Networks. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070064148.

• Doyle, Jeff and Carroll, Jennifer (2005). Routing TCP/IP, Volume I, Second Ed.. Cisco Press. ISBN 1587052024.
Ciscopress ISBN 1-58705-202-4 (http://www.ciscopress.com/title/1587052024)
• Doyle, Jeff and Carroll, Jennifer (2001). Routing TCP/IP, Volume II,. Cisco Press. ISBN 1578700892. Ciscopress
ISBN 1-57870-089-2 (http://www.ciscopress.com/title/1578700892)
Routing 7

• Huitema, Christian (2000). Routing in the Internet, Second Ed.. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0321227352.
• Kurose, James E. and Ross, Keith W. (2004). Computer Networking, Third Ed.. Benjamin/Cummings.
ISBN 0321227352.
• Medhi, Deepankar and Ramasamy, Karthikeyan (2007). Network Routing: Algorithms, Protocols, and
Architectures. Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 0120885883.

External links
• Count-To-Infinity Problem (http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab/Count-To-Infinity+Problem.html)
• "Stability Features" (http://www.ba-stuttgart.de/~schulte/htme/55024.htm#HDR3) are ways of avoiding the
"count to infinity" problem.
• Cisco IT Case Studies (http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ciscoitatwork/case_studies/routing.html) about
Routing and Switching
Article Sources and Contributors 8

Article Sources and Contributors

Routing  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=396563949  Contributors: 16@r, 212.150.1.xxx, 777sms, Abdi1543, Adamianash, Aegicen, Afrozenator, AgentPeppermint,
Akc9000, Aldie, AlistairMcMillan, Altenmann, Alvestrand, Anna Lincoln, Arunrkaushik, Azrael81, Azuris, [email protected], Black swallow, Borgx, Brest, [email protected], Bruce1ee,
Bryan Derksen, Brynosaurus, Callmejosh, ChooseAnother, Ciotog, Cojoco, Conversion script, CosineKitty, D. Recorder, DSRH, Darth Panda, David Lundberg, DavidLevinson, Delaszk, Dgtsyb,
Dominic, Dpaehlke, Durty1425, Easyas12c, Echoray, Elfguy, Emperorbma, EvanGrim, Everyking, Extraordinary, GentooBox, Giftlite, Gilliam, Gioto, Graldensblud, HRV, Haakon, Icelight,
Imcdnzl, Informedbanker, Insanity Incarnate, Isidore, Isnow, Itai, JTN, JaGa, Jacob grace, Jadams76, Jec, Jeltz, Jflabourdette, Jnc, Joeldipops, Joseph Dwayne, Joy, Jwestbrook, Kablammo,
Kanags, Karthikittce, Kbrose, Kdineshl, Khattab01, Kjkolb, Kozuch, Kremso, Lifefeed, Lilac Soul, LuciusAgrippa, M.duelli, M2petite, MER-C, MLD7865 Auto, Maury Markowitz, Mcbridea,
Michael Angelkovich, Michael Hardy, Mindmatrix, Minesweeper, Mmernex, Mmmeg, MrNerdHair, Mwalsh34, N328KF, Nealmcb, NeoJustin, Nethgirb, Neverquick, Nikosdimos, Nmacu,
Ocker3, Orrc, Oxymoron83, Paul, Pdelong, Pedant17, Pgallert, Phatom87, Phil Christs, Phyzome, PierreAbbat, Piet Delport, Powo, QueenCake, Quidam65, Qwe, R3m0t, Rebounder, Red Thrush,
Redsel, Rick Sidwell, RickK, Sevas, Shahid789, Sonett72, SpaceFlight89, Stephenb, Stevenmitchell, Stl, Takanoha, Taxman, Tecman, Thanhantorob, That Guy, From That Show!, The Anome,
Thijswijs, Tide rolls, Tjwagner, Tobias Bergemann, Todd Vierling, Towel401, Tregoweth, TripleF, Tristanb, Umreemala, Una Smith, UncleBubba, Unreasonabledude, Unyoyega, Uriah923,
Vary, Vineetkrjoshi, Vipulcvyas, Visor, Wadamja, Wbenton, Weregerbil, Wernher, West London Dweller, Weyes, Whocouldibe5, WikHead, Wmahan, Wolfkeeper, Wrc60, YUL89YYZ, Yama,
YordanGeorgiev, Youandme, Youssefsan, ZabMilenko, Zahnradzacken, Zoobee79, 290 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

image:cast.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cast.svg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Easyas12c
image:anycast.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Anycast.svg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Easyas12c, H Padleckas, Jarekt, 1 anonymous edits
image:broadcast.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Broadcast.svg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Easyas12c
image:multicast.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Multicast.svg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Easyas12c, Lupo, 1 anonymous edits
image:unicast.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Unicast.svg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Easyas12c, Perhelion
image:geocast.svg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Geocast.svg  License: Creative Commons Zero  Contributors: User:Revolus

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/