Comparative Analysis of BGP, OSPF, and RIP Dynamic Routing Protocols in Metro Ethernet Network and Broadband Service Implementation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35870/ijsecs.v6i1.7141Keywords:
BGP, OSPF, RIP, Metro Ethernet, Broadband, MikroTik, Dynamic Routing ProtocolAbstract
The reliability of Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks increasingly depends on the routing protocols employed to manage traffic across distributed infrastructure. This study investigates and compares the operational performance of three widely adopted dynamic routing protocols — Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), and Routing Information Protocol (RIP) — deployed across the Metro Ethernet network of PT Kreatif Data Prima Nusantara, a regional ISP located in Kedaton, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia. The existing network architecture relies on a combined deployment of static routing and OSPF distributed across four Points of Presence (POP): QNN, Tamin, Labuhan Dalam, and INQI. This hybrid configuration has repeatedly produced prolonged convergence delays, operational complexity in fault isolation, and constrained scalability. A simulation-based experimental methodology was adopted, replicating the physical network topology using MikroTik RouterOS-based Cloud Core Routers (CCR). Key performance indicators evaluated include convergence time, CPU utilization, bandwidth overhead, and overall network availability. Experimental outcomes clearly show BGP's superior performance: an average convergence time of 18.36 seconds — substantially faster than RIP's 28.34 seconds and more resource-efficient across all measured dimensions, despite OSPF's faster raw reconvergence at 3.21 seconds; CPU utilization of only 11% compared to 19% for OSPF and 38% for RIP; and bandwidth overhead of 1.9 Kbps versus 9.2 Kbps for OSPF and 26.8 Kbps for RIP. BGP also recorded the highest network availability at 99.98%. The simulation topology encompasses four POPs — a relatively small-scale environment — and results should be read within that scope. These findings support the recommendation that PT Kreatif Data Prima Nusantara adopt a full BGP deployment as its primary routing strategy to improve long-term operational efficiency, network manageability, and service reliability.
Downloads
References
Aman, K. P., & Musina, A. A. (2025). Comparative analysis of BGP and OSPF performance in multi-level architectures. Bulletin of Shakarim University. Technical Sciences, 1(4(20)), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.53360/2788-7995-2025-4(20)-4
Bhagat, N. (2021). The role of BGP in multi-homed networks: Best practices for internet redundancy and traffic optimization. International Journal of Core Engineering & Management, 6(12), 293–302.
Cisco Systems. (2022). BGP design and implementation: Best practices for service providers. Cisco Press.
Elmokashfi, A., Kvalbein, A., & Dovrolis, C. (2010). On the scalability of BGP: The roles of topology growth and update rate-limiting. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 28(8), 1250–1261. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2010.101003
Fortz, B., & Thorup, M. (2000). Internet traffic engineering by optimizing OSPF weights. Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2000 (pp. 519–528). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2000.832225
Friwansya, H. A., Irawati, I. D., & Hariyani, Y. S. (2018). Implementasi protokol routing eBGP pada software defined. e-Proceeding of Applied Science, 4(3), 2453–2462.
Huston, G. (2020). BGP in 2020: The year in review. APNIC Blog. https://blog.apnic.net/2021/01/05/bgp-in-2020-the-year-in-review/
Iannone, L., & Bonaventure, O. (2020). Internet traffic engineering. In The internet and its protocols: A comparative approach (2nd ed., pp. 301–345). Morgan Kaufmann.
Imran, N., Riaz, S., Shaheen, A., Sharif, M., & Raza, M. (2014). Comparative analysis of link state and distance vector routing protocols for mobile adhoc networks. Science International, 26(2).
Lapukhov, P., Premji, A., & Mitchell, J. (2016). Use of BGP for routing in large-scale data center networks (RFC 7938). Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7938
Malkin, G. (1998). RIP version 2 (RFC 2453). Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2453
Metro Ethernet Forum. (2021). MEF 70.1: SD-WAN service attributes and services. https://www.mef.net/resources/mef-70-1-sd-wan-service-attributes-and-services/
MikroTik. (2024). RouterOS BGP documentation v7.x. https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/BGP
Moy, J. (1998). OSPF version 2 (RFC 2328). Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2328
Murali Krishna, M., Mudimela, P. R., & Kumar, P. P. (2020). Performance analysis of RIPv2, OSPF and EIGRP protocols using Cisco Packet Tracer Simulator 7.2. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 9(3), 864–869. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.C5337.029320
Mwewa, W., & Lubobya, S. C. (2022). Performance evaluation of routing protocols in enterprise networks. American Journal of Computing and Engineering, 5(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.47672/ajce.953
Nasir, A., & Tariq, U. (2018). A comparative study of routing protocols including RIP, OSPF and BGP. Lahore Garrison University Research Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 2(2), 47–56.
Nurhayati, A., Posma, R., & Maulana, K. N. (2013). Analisis routing pada OSPF Metro Ethernet PT. Telekomunikasi Indonesia. Journal ICT, 4(6).
Prasetyo, D., & Wibowo, A. (2021). Evaluasi kinerja OSPF dan BGP pada infrastruktur MikroTik untuk layanan Metro Ethernet. Jurnal Ilmiah FIFO, 13(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.22441/fifo.2021.v13i2.009
RamKumar, K., & Anand, S. R. (2016). Optimal performance analysis enabling OSPF and BGP in internal and external WAN. International Journal of Control, Automation, Communication and Systems, 1(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijcacs.2016.1101
Rekhter, Y., Li, T., & Hares, S. (2006). A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (RFC 4271). Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4271
Tanenbaum, A. S., & Wetherall, D. J. (2011). Computer networks (5th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ekie Revsie Akbar, Try Mulyoto, Imelda Imelda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright Retention and Open Access License
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal non-exclusive right of first publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Rights Granted Under CC BY 4.0
Under this license, readers are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use
- No additional restrictions — the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as license terms are followed
3. Attribution Requirements
All uses must include:
- Proper citation of the original work
- Link to the Creative Commons license
- Indication if changes were made to the original work
- No suggestion that the licensor endorses the user or their use
4. Additional Distribution Rights
Authors may:
- Deposit the published version in institutional repositories
- Share through academic social networks
- Include in books, monographs, or other publications
- Post on personal or institutional websites
Requirement: All additional distributions must maintain the CC BY 4.0 license and proper attribution.
5. Self-Archiving and Pre-Print Sharing
Authors are encouraged to:
- Share pre-prints and post-prints online
- Deposit in subject-specific repositories (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv)
- Engage in scholarly communication throughout the publication process
6. Open Access Commitment
This journal provides immediate open access to all content, supporting the global exchange of knowledge without financial, legal, or technical barriers.
