RIP/IGRP VS OSPF
william_yeo
Member Posts: 63 ■■□□□□□□□□
in CCNA & CCENT
sorry guys, i know this question is quite stupid 
..... but i'm noob in CCNA, self studying now...... quite confuse wif these routing protocol.....
can some1 briefly explain.....
ur answer is highly appreaciated...... thanks in advance...
*btw, u guys got any recommended study material for CCNA 640-801 ??
currently i study from the Cisco CCNA self study book.. and normally which topic is important?
..... but i'm noob in CCNA, self studying now...... quite confuse wif these routing protocol.....can some1 briefly explain.....
ur answer is highly appreaciated...... thanks in advance...
*btw, u guys got any recommended study material for CCNA 640-801 ??
currently i study from the Cisco CCNA self study book.. and normally which topic is important?
Comments
-
Drakonblayde
Member Posts: 542
Well RIP and IGRP are distance vector protocols and OSPF is link state. RIP doesn't scale well for large networks at all, IGRP scales better, but both suffer from a bit of bandwidth inefficiency (they both periodically sent out their entire routing table) and the convergence speed isn't all that great. But they're incredibly easy to setup. They're also classful routing protocols, so they don't supply subnet information as part of their updates, so you can't use VLSM.
OSPF is link state. It maintains a view of the entire networks topology and only issues routing updates when something changes, thereby saving bandwidth once the initial convergence is reached. It's very scalable, but can be a pain to setup, especially in multiple areas. It's a classless routing protocol, so you can use VLSM.
That's the basic overview of the differences between the two. Unfortunately, you're going to have to spend some time with a book and some hardware and configure it to really see the difference. The Sybex CCNA book by Todd Lammle seems to be the self-study bible.= Marcus Drakonblayde
================
CCNP-O-Meter:
=[0%]==[25%]==[50%]==[75%]==[100%]
==[X]===[X]====[ ]=====[ ]====[ ]==
=CCNA==BSCI==BCMSN==BCRAN==CIT= -
tunerX
Member Posts: 447 ■■■□□□□□□□
The best books I have read so far are the Doyle Routing TCP/IP books I and II by cisco press. Routing protocols are covered in depth and the book is straight to the point.
-
william_yeo
Member Posts: 63 ■■□□□□□□□□
wher can download this Sybex CCNA book by Todd Lammle seems??
-
Drakonblayde
Member Posts: 542
Erm, disseminiation of where to download copyrighted material is just a tad bit illegal.= Marcus Drakonblayde
================
CCNP-O-Meter:
=[0%]==[25%]==[50%]==[75%]==[100%]
==[X]===[X]====[ ]=====[ ]====[ ]==
=CCNA==BSCI==BCMSN==BCRAN==CIT= -
Jerz
Member Posts: 86 ■■□□□□□□□□
william_yeo wrote:wher can download this Sybex CCNA book by Todd Lammle seems??
No need to download copywrighted books... just bop on over to cbtnuggets.com plunk down a few hunderos and buy some videos... 
-
william_yeo
Member Posts: 63 ■■□□□□□□□□
other than Sybex CCNA book by Todd Lammle ?? got other?
Drakonblayde wrote:Well RIP and IGRP are distance vector protocols and OSPF is link state. RIP doesn't scale well for large networks at all, IGRP scales better, but both suffer from a bit of bandwidth inefficiency (they both periodically sent out their entire routing table) and the convergence speed isn't all that great. But they're incredibly easy to setup. They're also classful routing protocols, so they don't supply subnet information as part of their updates, so you can't use VLSM.
OSPF is link state. It maintains a view of the entire networks topology and only issues routing updates when something changes, thereby saving bandwidth once the initial convergence is reached. It's very scalable, but can be a pain to setup, especially in multiple areas. It's a classless routing protocol, so you can use VLSM.
That's the basic overview of the differences between the two. Unfortunately, you're going to have to spend some time with a book and some hardware and configure it to really see the difference. The Sybex CCNA book by Todd Lammle seems to be the self-study bible.
