The routing operations play a pivotal role in deciding the path and the sequence of the operation that is being performed. It can establish an optimum balance between the operations.
Various protocols guide the operations in routing. The two most common and important routing protocols are IGRP and EIGRP.
Key Takeaways
- EIGRP is an advanced version of IGRP and provides more features.
- EIGRP uses a DUAL algorithm to calculate the best path for data transmission, whereas IGRP uses a distance-vector algorithm.
- EIGRP supports VLSM (Variable Length Subnet Masking), while IGRP doesn’t.
IGRP vs EIGRP
IGRP (Interior Gateway Routing Protocol) provides an internal pathway to transfer data from one server to another. The algorithm used in it is named as Bellman-Ford. EIGRP (Enhanced Interior IGRP) is more advanced and fastest. It serves both as a link-state or vector routing protocol.
IGRP is a routing protocol that functions over distance yet interiors of a closely connected network. IGRP has an algorithm called Bellman-Ford.
It contains a list of the information in the network. The protocol deals with routings like TCP and IP.
On the other hand, EIGRP is a routing protocol that functions over a link-state vector routing protocol as well as link distance vector routing. It has advanced features and techniques.
The support that EIGRP provides is best for huge-scale networks that are complex and require high-functioning capabilities. It is a secure and configurable protocol.
Comparison Table
| Parameters of Comparison | IGRP | EIGRP |
|---|---|---|
| Full form | Interior Gateway Routing Protocol | Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol |
| Type | Distance vector routing protocol | Link state vector routing protocol, as well as link distance vector routing protocol |
| Convergence rate | It has a slow rate of convergence | It has a fast rate of convergence |
| Algorithm | The algorithm used in IGRP is Bellman-Ford | The algorithm used in EIGRP is a Dual Algorithm |
| Delay (in bits) | The delay in IGRP is about 24 bits | The delay in EIGRP is about 32 bits |
What is IGRP?
IGRP stands for Interior Gateway Routing Protocol. It is a type of routing protocol that can function over a distance vector.
The algorithm used in IGRP is Bellman-Ford. The IGRP method has the least hop count of 255.
It efficiently synchronises the routing process between gateways exchanging routing information with other neighbouring gateways. The routing information in IGRP consists of a list.
Detailed precise information about the network. Since there are numerous gateways involved in solving the problem in optimization, IGRP has its algorithm.
Distributed, which can tackle the problem through the allotted gateway. IGRP has the basic routing of TCP or IP under several protocols.
As the name suggests, it is an Interior protocol and is used within a group of closely related networks. The network can be managed by individual or group entities.
IGRP is also considered as a successor of Routing Information Protocol (RIP). The capabilities of IGRP are advanced and can handle diverse, huge, and complex networks.
Apart from the several advantages, there are many limitations and drawbacks of IGRP. Various problems arise in the routing loop, and to minimize these routing loop problems.
The entire newly generated data is neglected for a period. The neglect continues until all the changes take place.
IGRP is easily configurable, which may not be desirable for many networks.
What is EIGRP?
EIGRP stands for Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol. It is a type of routing protocol. It acts as a link-state routing protocol and also serves as a vector routing protocol.
EIGRP caters to efficient support for the huge scale network. It is an improved version of the existing IGRP. It provides advanced features which are not available in most other protocols.
EIGRP gives rise to a hybrid routing. This kind of routing is developed by merging the distance vector routing and link-state routing features.
EIGRP has several advantages like it is easy to configure and provides security in the networks. The features are efficient, and functional EIGRP is supported by the classless routing technique.
EIGRP generates smaller overhead and functions within a small bandwidth. It does not send any periodic updates and only updates when there is a change in metric or path.
It is also the fastest protocol in terms of convergence rate because of DUAL (Diffusing Update Algorithm). It also provides backup routes to the destinations in any uncertain case.
EIGRP has a rapid route summarization and has the potential to create a summary route at any point, within a short span, in the network. The metric for traffic flow in EIGRP follows unequal metrics.
Load balancing and spreads traffic across the network effectively. The bandwidth and delay in EIGRP are 32 bits. The performance is better than most other protocols.
Main Differences Between IGRP and EIGRP
- The IGRP has the least hop count of 255, while the EIGRP has the least hop count of 256.
- The routing technique in IGRP is supported by classful, while the routing technique in EIGRP is supported by classless.
- The timers in IGRP update in 90 secs, while the timers in EIGRP update only with any alteration.
- The administrative distance covered by IGRP is 100, while the administrative distance covered by EIGRP is 90.
- The bandwidth required in IGRP is more, while the bandwidth required in EIGRP is comparatively less.
Last Updated : 13 July, 2023
I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️
Sandeep Bhandari holds a Bachelor of Engineering in Computers from Thapar University (2006). He has 20 years of experience in the technology field. He has a keen interest in various technical fields, including database systems, computer networks, and programming. You can read more about him on his bio page.
The article masterfully dissects the intricacies of IGRP and EIGRP, elucidating the technical nuances and operational disparities with precision. It’s an intellectually stimulating piece that caters to an audience with a penchant for detailed technical knowledge.
Absolutely, the depth of technical insight and meticulous analysis presented in the article makes it a commendable reference for individuals seeking in-depth comprehension of routing protocols.
The article provides a comprehensive and detailed comparison between IGRP and EIGRP, highlighting the features, protocols, and differences between the two. It is an informative and well-structured piece that offers insights into the world of routing operations.
Absolutely, I found the detailed analysis and comparison of the two routing protocols to be very enlightening. It’s clear that the author has a deep understanding of the subject matter.
While the article’s depth of technical information is commendable, the absence of practical use cases and real-world applications limits its potential to engage a broader audience beyond networking professionals. Consideration of applied scenarios would elevate the article’s relevance and appeal.
The article successfully presents the technical disparities and benefits of IGRP and EIGRP, shedding light on their respective algorithms, convergence rates, and functionalities. A well-structured and intellectually stimulating read.
Agreed, the depth of analysis and quality of information make this article an essential read for anyone involved in network optimization and routing operations.
The distinction between IGRP and EIGRP in terms of convergence rate, algorithm, and features is clearly outlined. This is a valuable resource for networking professionals looking to understand the intricacies of routing protocols.
Absolutely, the detailed comparison and comprehensive information will undoubtedly benefit professionals seeking to expand their knowledge in the field of network routing.
While the comparison between IGRP and EIGRP is interesting, the article could benefit from delving into the practical applications and real-world scenarios where these protocols are most suitable. Offering a more applied perspective would enhance the readers’ understanding.
I believe that the author’s intent was to provide a theoretical overview of IGRP and EIGRP rather than delving into specific applications. While it’s a valid point, the depth of technical information presented in the article is impressive.
I couldn’t agree more. Real-world examples and case studies would add significant value to the article and engage the readers by illustrating the practical relevance of the protocols.
The article provides a comprehensive comparison between IGRP and EIGRP, serving as a valuable resource for individuals aiming to enhance their understanding of routing operations. A commendable piece that caters to the intellectual rigor of the subject matter.
The detailed comparison table provided in the article effectively summarizes the differences between IGRP and EIGRP, making it easier for readers to grasp the key disparities and make informed decisions on protocol selection.
Indeed, the visual representation of the comparison table offers a quick and comprehensive understanding of the key parameters, enabling readers to discern the nuances between the two routing protocols.