Comparative Study Between Dynamic IPv6 Routing

Protocols of Distance Vectors and Link States

Ouidad LABOUIDYA Najib ELKAMOUN
Khalid EL KHADIRI
STIC Laboratory STIC Laboratory
STIC Laboratory
Chouaib Doukkali University Chouaib Doukkali University
Chouaib Doukkali University
El Jadida, Morocco El Jadida, Morocco
El Jadida, Morocco
labouidya.o@ucd.ac.ma elkamoun.n@ucd.ac.ma
khalid.elkhadiri@ucd.ac.ma
Rachid HILAL
STIC Laboratory
Chouaib Doukkali University
El Jadida, Morocco
hilal.r@ucd.ac.ma

Abstract—Currently, the exponential growth of the Internet topology change, the routing protocols intervene to provide
and the limitations of IPv4 (the current version of the Internet an alternative path to the destination.
Protocol) in terms of lack of IP addresses, mobility and
security make the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 more and more In this article, we will examine and study the IPv6
a necessity. There are even some operators who finished off routing concept to result in a comparative study of dynamic
their IPv4 addresses store and migrated to IPv6. In addition, IPv6 routing protocols. The rest of the article is organized as
IPv6 routing protocols have to adapt to facilitate this transition follows. Section II will discuss a state-of-the-art of the
and the deployment of IPv6 as well. Moreover, the selection of research work performed in this field and our motivation for
the best routing protocol among the available ones is a critical this study as well. Section III will present the classification
task, which depends on one hand on the network requirements of IPv6 routing protocols. Section IV will describe the
and its deployment and on the other hand on some principles and limits of operating of these protocols. Section
performance parameters of different applications in real-time. V will discuss the routing algorithms used for each protocol
Routing is a process necessary to select the optimal path in to select the optimal path to such-and-such destination.
order to allow a number of peripherals to communicate with Section VI will present the comparison between these
each other even in different networks. That can be done protocols, and the conclusion of the article will be presented
dynamically by using routing protocols, which rely on different in section VII.
algorithms. In this article, we will present a comparative study
of dynamic IPv6 routing protocols, namely RIPng (Routing
Information Protocol next generation), EIGRPv6 (IPv6 II. STATE-OF-THE-ART AND MOTIVATION
Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol), OSPFv3 (Open The IPv6 routing concept is widely studied to facilitate
Shortest Path First version 3), IS-IS (Intermediate System to the IPv6 deployment, and a significant part of the research
Intermediate System), and BGP4+ (IPv6 Border Gateway work has been performed in the field of performance
Protocol version 4). We classified these protocols into two
evaluation of some IPv6 routing protocols. However, a
categories and compared them. We described the involved
minority of these works addressed studies on some IPv6
protocols for each case, their operating principles, their
routing algorithms, their deployment limits, and the possible
routing protocols. That is this observation that encouraged us
configurations as well. This study is not only intended to to focus our research on a comparative study of the existing.
compare these categories to each other, but also to present and Here are some examples of research works performed in this
describe for each of them the involved protocols, their field.
operating principles, their deployment limits in order to The author Hinds and his colleagues [3] performed a
enlighten and help customers who want to use or deploy the study and a comparison of two popular protocols: OSPF and
IPv6 to choose the suitable IPv6 routing protocol according to
EIGRP for IPv6. The main changes between the editions
their needs.
IPv4 and IPv6 were identified and discussed, and both
Keywords— IPv6, RIPng, EIGRPv6, OSPFv3, IS-IS, BGP4+. protocols were compared for a number of parameters such as
metrics, convergence speed, throughput, scalability,
configuration difficulty, and security. Another study of the
I. INTRODUCTION protocols RIP and OSPF in IPv6 was performed by the
Routing is the process of packets transmission between author Aggarwal [4] by presenting, for each of both
connected network segments (links or subnetworks) [1]. In protocols, the operating principle and their advantages and
the case of an IPv6 network, rooting is the part of IPv6 that disadvantages as well.
provides the transmission between hosts belonging to
The performance of the IPv6 routing protocols, namely
separate network segments. IPv6 network segments [2], also
RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRPv6, was examined by the author
called links or subnetworks, are connected by IPv6 routers,
Masrouroh and her colleagues [5] in an IPv6 network using
which ensure IPv6 packets' transmission of a network
the GNS3 simulator. Performance measurements were
segment to another one. These transiting packets get through
performed on the basis of some parameters such as
several routers. Each time that there is a link failure or a
throughput, jitter, and packets loss. Consequently, RIPng

978-1-5386-7330-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

was the most performing in terms of throughput, the routing Autonomous System (AS), and the exterior gateway protocol
protocols combination OSPFv3-EIGRPv6 gave the best jitter (EGPs) operate between Autonomous Systems (Ass) [11].
value while the best packets loss value was performed by the BGP4+ is an example of EGPs protocols. The most popular
protocol RIPng. The authors Whitfield and Zhu [6] IPv6 IGPs are RIPng, EIGRPv6, OSPFv3, and IS-IS.
compared two IPv6 routing protocols that are OSPFv3 and
EIGRPv6 within a small enterprise network. The All these protocols interfere in common objectives,
performance analysis was established in terms of start-up and which are:
re-convergence speed, and security. The found results • Optimization: selection of the best paths
showed that EIGRPv6 performance was better than the ones
of OSPFv3 in terms of start-up and re-convergence speed in • Elimination of routing loops: elimination of circular
a point-to-point configuration rather than in a LAN paths
environment. In terms of security, OSPFv3 performance was • Efficiency: low bandwidth and UPC consuming
better when IPsec was enabled, compared to the one of
EIGRPv6 that always remained degraded when its MD5 • Stability: fast convergence and reconfiguration
authentication mechanism was enabled.
• Simplicity: simple configuration
For their part, the author Ahmad Jaafar and his
colleagues [7] performed a performance evaluation on the In principle and according to the configuration on
OSPFv3 and IS-IS protocols by using the same Dijkstra routers, the IPv6 routing can be classified into two categories
algorithm for calculating the best path when we send a [12]: static IPv6 routing and dynamic IPv6 routing as we can
packet to a particular destination. The evaluation was see in Figure 1 below. In addition, the dynamic IPv6 routing,
performed on the Riverbed Modeler simulator in terms of which represents dynamic routing protocols, can be divided
convergence time, Hello traffic sent, and routing table size. into two protocols families: the interior gateway protocols
The found results show that IS-IS surpasses OSPFv3 in most like RIPng, EIGRPv6, OSPFv3, IS-IS and the exterior
cases, specifically related to convergence time. Another gateway protocols like BGP4+. Moreover, these protocols
performance evaluation of the two dynamic routing protocols can be divided into two categories: distance-vector routing
(OSPF and EIGRP) in the IPv4 and IPv6 networks was protocols and link-state routing protocols. RIPng [13] is a
established by the author Wijaya [8]. Protocols performance distance-vector routing protocol, BGP4+ is a path vector
was analyzed and compared in terms of routing tables, protocol [14]; a variety of distance-vector protocols, where
metrics, and packets loss. Consequently, EIGRP gave better path tables are exchanged, while OSPFv3 and IS-IS are link-
performance than OSPF in both environments (IPv4 and state routing protocols [15]. EIGRPv6 [16], developed and
IPv6). optimized by Cisco, is an advanced distance-vector routing
protocol. It is considered as a hybrid because it has
characteristics of both distance-vector routing protocols and
III. CLASSIFICATION OF IPV6 ROUTING PROTOCOLS link-state routing protocols such as the establishment of
In IPv6, the routing configuration is a necessary adjacency relationships.
operation so that a number of peripherals can communicate
with each other even in different networks. One of the
problems that can occur is the misconfiguration of the
routing table, which can have an impact on packets
transmission such as the loss of these packets and the delay.
In terms of configuration, there are two different ways to
configure routing tables on routers. Either using static IPv6
routing or dynamic IPv6 routing.

A. Static IPv6 routing

In IPv6, this does not differ so much from IPv4 [9]. The
syntax is basically the same, except that in IPv6 we do not
have a "network" address. So that is called the IPv6 prefix,
which will serve as a reference for our routing table. For a
computer network that is not too large, it is advantageous to
use static IPv6 routing. Fig. 1. Classification of IPv6 routing protocols

B. Dynamic IPv6 routing Most of routing protocols developed in IPv4 has been
Dynamic IPv6 routing is almost identical to dynamic modified in order to be used in IPv6 with a different header
IPv4 routing under CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing). architecture (40 bytes in IPv6 compared to 20 bytes in IPv4)
The only difference is the addresses size, which is 128 bits in [17]. IPv6 routing protocols have similarities when it comes
IPv6 instead of 32 bits in IPv4 [10]. For a larger computer out to functions and configurations with their IPv4
network, the use of static routing will be more difficult for equivalent, but as the IPv6 headers are longer than the ones
network administrators who are responsible for managing of IPv4 [18], routing updates have to contain more
routing tables in the case of a failure. information [19].
There are two families of dynamic IPv6 routing protocols
although many routing protocols are defined with these two
types: the interior gateway protocol (IGPs) operate within an
 IV. PRINCIPLES AND LIMITS OF OPERATING OF 2) Link-state routing protocols
IPV6 ROUTING PROTOCOLS a) OSPFv3
OSPFv3 is the version of OSPF that exchanges IPv6
A. Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs)
paths [27]. Version 2 is used for IPv4. It's a question of a
1) Distance-vector routing protocols modification of the OSPFv2 version performing on IPv4 to
a) RIPng allow it to announce IPv6 paths. OSPFv3 is a link-state
RIPng is the update of the RIPv2 version (used for IPv4) routing protocol developed as an open format for the IP
with small changes to allow it to announce IPv6 paths [20]. routing on large multi-supplier networks. It performs the SPF
That is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector (Shortest Path First) Dijkstra algorithm to calculate the best
algorithm to select the best path to a particular destination paths and then places the best path to each subnetwork in its
[21]. The RIPng messages are sent in PDU on IPv6 on the routing table [28]. OSPFv3 is designed to overcome some
PDU 521 port while RIPv2 uses the port number 520. About limitations that exist in the RIPng protocol such as the
metrics, RIPng uses the distance vector that is calculated by network size and the convergence time. It works very well
being based on the number of hops (the crossed routers). A like OSPFv2 that was designed to work in an IPv4
metric of 16 hops is considered infinite. About updates, environment. For example, both use link-state logic and the
RIPng uses partial updates after modification, and full same metric. The biggest differences between OSPFv3 and
updates are exchanged each 30 s [22]. In addition, RIPng the former OSPFv2 reside in the internal components and the
supports the VLSM (Variable Length Subnet Mask), the configuration. It uses IPv6 datagrams with protocol number
authentication by AH (Authentication Header)/ESP 89 to exchange OSPF messages [29]. Thus, it uses the notion
(Encapsulating Security Payload) and the labeling of paths. of zones like in IPv4. Moreover, OSPFv3 supports VLSM,
authentication on AH/ESP and path labeling.
The configuration of the RIPng protocol consists in:
The configuration of the OSPFv3 protocol consists in:
• Enable the RIPng process in the router by specifying
a name to the process • Enable the OSPFv3 process in the router

• Specify through what interface RIPng will announce • Assign a login (in the form of IPv4 address) to the
these messages by associating the RIPng process router
with an interface • Enable the OSPFv3 process on an interface by
indicating the attachment area
b) EIGRPv6
EIGRPv6 is an enhanced version of EIGRP developed by b) IS-IS
Cisco to allow it to announce IPv6 paths [23]. It is an That is a link-state routing protocol similar to OSPFv3.
advanced distance-vector protocol developped for the That means that each router transmits the state of its links in
multiple routing protocols through the small and medium order to map the state of the network and then build its
Cisco's enterprises [24]. It is more upgradeable than RIPng routing table [30]. Like OSPFv3, IS-IS is also a hierarchical
because it takes charge of 255 hops. Moreover, it includes routing protocol used with large enterprises allowing to
many characteristics of a link-state routing protocol. define several routing domains (zones) and thus reduce the
Therefore, it is also called "hybrid protocol". EIGRPv6 uses tables size and the convergence time [31]. It supports IPv4
the DUAL algorithm (Diffused Update Algorithm) to and IPv6 and uses the same SPF Dijkstra algorithm as
calculate the shortest path to reach such-and-such destination OSPFv3 to determine the shortest path to such-and-such
in a network while avoiding loops [25]. In addition, there is destination in a network. A particularity of IS-IS is that it
the possibility of balancing the traffic between equal or carries IP network information, but it does not use IP as its
unequal paths of metric cost. It allows adjacency transport protocol. This characteristic allows it to be fully
relationships with neighboring routers, and the exchange of independent of the protocols it routes (IPv6, IPv4). About
messages between routers is provided by RTP (Reliable addressing, IS-IS is also an address format different from the
Transfer Protocol). Thus, EIGRP first sends its routing one of OSPFv3. It uses the ISO NET format (Network Entity
information to a neighbor, and only then metric updates that Title) for each router involved in the IS-IS routing process. It
take into account the bandwidth and delay of the interfaces. uses two "Levels" of routing for the IS-IS routers: Level 1
Other parameters can be configured as well (the reliability (L1) for intra-zone routing (just the zone where it is
and load of the interface) [26]. For administrative distances, identified) and Level 2 (L2) for inter-zone routing (between
EIGRPv6 defines two different administrative distances: 90 several zones).
(by default) is for internal paths while 170 (by default) is for
external paths. Moreover, EIGRPv6 supports VLSM and The configuration of the IS-IS protocol consists in:
several protocols of the network layer such as IPv4, IPv6, • Enable the IS-IS process on the router by specifying
AppleTalk, IPX, etc. a name
The configuration of EIGRPv6 protocol consists in:
• Identify the IS-IS router by giving it a NET address
• Specify an AS number "Autonomous System composed of the zone number, the equipment login
Number" on the router in the zone (its MAC address), and the 0x00 suffix
• Assign a login (in the form of IPv4 address) to the • Specify the IS-IS level of the router: Level 1 or
router Level 2
• Attach the process to the router interfaces • Configure the paths that will be announced by the
IS-IS router
 • Enable the IS-IS routing process on the involved and-such a destination of the network. The "distance" in
interfaces by specifying the process name question can be represented by the number of hops allowing
to reach this destination. A distance-vector routing protocol
B. Exterior Gateway Protocols (EGPs) is a protocol that uses a routing algorithm that adds distances
to find the best paths (Bellman -Ford) [34]. Routers
1) Path vector protocols periodically send the totality or a part of their routing tables
a) BGP4+ entries to the neighbor routers, regardless of whether changes
That is an exterior gateway protocol [32], which is were made to the network. When a router receives a routing
different from the interior gateway protocols examined so far update, it checks all known paths and modifies its own
(RIPng, EIGRPv6, OSPFv3, and IS-IS). It is used by many routing table if need be. EIGRPv6 uses the DUAL algorithm
Internet services providers (ISP) and the societies of large (Diffusion Update Algorithm) to calculate the best paths
enterprises that have double host Internet connection with [35].
simple or double host routers on identical or different
Internet services providers. In addition, the BGP4+ version, B. Link-state routing protocols
also known as multi-protocol BGP, adds extensions to Link-state routing protocols were designed to overcome
support several other protocols and addresses types (IPv6, the limitations of distance-vector routing protocols. They use
IPX, and VPN) [33]. Indeed, the BGP4+ external protocol is a more efficient algorithm (Dijkstra or Shortest Path First)
used to carry routing information between autonomous [36] to calculate the best itinerary to a specific destination.
systems (AS). Thus, it allows exchanging information Routers collect all links costs and build from their point of
between networks having different routing policies. It works view the tree of all possible paths. The best paths are
over TCP and differently from a "distance-vector" protocol: integrated into the routing table. Moreover, link-state routing
no periodic transmission of the best paths, but only the protocols have the advantage of responding quickly to the
changes are transmitted. Indeed, BGP4+ belongs to path slightest changes on the network by sending updates
vector protocols, which manage the loops problem between triggered only after modification. Besides, these protocols
autonomous systems by automatically removing them from send periodic updates, known as link-state updates, at less
routing tables. Thus, it memorizes all the paths to all the frequent intervals. As soon as a unit has detected the
destinations, and allows a fast recovery when a destination modification of a link or a path, it creates a link-state routing
becomes inaccessible by the initially chosen path. Moreover, update LSA (Link-state advertisement) regarding this link
it supports CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing). [37]. This LSA update is then transmitted to all neighbor
The configuration of BGP4+ protocol consists in: equipment. Each of them takes a copy, updates its link-state
database and transmits the LSA update to other neighboring
• Enable the BGP4+ process by specifying the AS units. This diffusion of LSA updates is necessary so that all
number in the router routing equipment can create databases that accurately
• Specify if the router announces IPv4 paths as well or transcribe the network topology and update their routing
not (by default it does) table.

• Specify a login (in the form of an IPv4 address) to VI. COMPARISON OF IPV6 ROUTING PROTOCOLS
the router
The key factors that characterize the different routing
• Define the BGP4+ neighbors identified by their IPv6 protocols are the convergence, which means the speed of
addresses. We also specify the AS of each neighbor adaptation to network changes, their ability to choose the
optimal path among the different itineraries (routing
• Place the router in an IPv6 address family
algorithm), the use of resources such as the memory area
• Enable the BGP4+ exchanges with neighbors (RAM), the use of processor, and the use of the bandwidth
identified by their IPv4 addresses or IPv6 ones or [38]. Table 1 below represents a comparison between the two
group name. IPv6 exchanges need to be explicitly categories: distance-vector IPv6 routing protocols and link-
enabled state IPv6 routing protocols.
• Specify the IPv6 prefixes that will be announced by
BGP4+

V. ROUTING ALGORITHMS OF IPV6 ROUTING PROTOCOLS

In principle, routing consists in choosing the best paths
between a source and a specific destination. That can be done
dynamically by using routing protocols that rely on different
routing algorithms. However, each category of distance-
vector IPv6 routing protocols or link-state IPv6 routing
protocols uses an algorithm to calculate the best itinerary to
such-and-such destination.

A. Distance-vector routing protocols

For distance-vector IPv6 routing protocols, the term
"distance-vector" comes from the fact that the protocol
manipulates the direction (vector) and the distance to such-
 TABLE I. COMPARISON OF CATEGORIES OF IPV6 ROUTING PROTOCOLS

Distance vector Link state

Topologies Limited topologies Complex and broad topologies
Configuration Easy to configure Skills required
Network organization Flat networks Networks in areas
Resources consuming Low UPC and RAM consuming UPC and RAM consuming
Routing algorithm or process Relies on distances (number of hops) Relies on link-state (LSA)
Convergence time Slow because of loops detection Fast
Updates Frequent periodic updates Updates triggered by events
Gives copies of routing tables to Gives link-state routing updates to other
Routing information
neighbouring routers
exchange
routers outers
Loops deleting Needs specific mechanisms Incident to the protocol
Developer IETF, EIGRPv6 (Cisco) IETF

[10] K. EL KHADIRI, O. LABOUIDYA, N. ELKAMOUN, and R.

VII. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVE HILAL, “Etude comparative des mécanismes de transition de
l’IPv4 à l’IPv6,” Mediterranean Telecommunications Journal, vol.
In this article, a comparative study was performed on 7, no. 1, Jan. 2017.
dynamic IPv6 routing protocols. We classified these [11] P. Pegon, “Un exemple de généralisation opérationnelle à grande
protocols into two categories and compared them: échelle d’IPv6 sur un réseau métropolitain,” Actes du congrès
distance-vector and link-state. This study is not only JRES, 2005.
intended to compare each category with the other, but also [12] D. Chauhan and S. Sharma, “Performance Evaluation of Different
to present and describe for each of them the involved Routing Protocols in IPv4 and IPv6 Networks on the Basis of
Packet Sizes,” Procedia computer science, vol. 46, pp. 1072–1078,
protocols, their operating principles, their routing 2015.
algorithms, their deployment limits, and their possible
[13] X. LI and L. MU, “Research of RIPng Routing Technology in IPv6
configurations in order to enlighten and help customers [J],” Microcomputer Development, vol. 10, p. 034, 2004.
and users who want to use or deploy IPv6 to choose the [14] T. Bates, R. Chandra, D. Katz, and Y. Rekhter, “Multiprotocol
suitable IPv6 routing protocol according to their needs. In extensions for BGP-4,” RFC 4760, Jan. 2007.
addition, the solutions vary according to the needs and the [15] A. Kaur and D. Kumar, “Comparative Analysis of Link State
requirements of the users: different protocols can be Routing Protocols OPSF and IS-IS,” IJCST, vol. 3, 2013.
appropriate for different requirements in different networks [16] N. Devi, E. B. Sharma, and R. K. Saini, “Comparative Study of
at different points. Our perspective targets an evaluation EIRGPv6 with OSPFv3 in Internet Routing Protocols,”
and performance comparison of IPv6 routing protocols by International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science
and Software Engineering, vol. 6, no. 9, 2016.
using their performance for different types of applications.
[17] K. EL KHADIRI, O. LABOUIDYA, N. ELKAMOUN, and R.
HILAL, “Performance Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Transition
REFERENCES Mechanisms for Real-Time Applications using OPNET Modeler,”
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and
[1] A. Brandt and J. Buron, “Transmission of IPv6 packets over ITU-T Applications, vol. 9, no. 4, May 2018.
G. 9959 Networks,” RFC 7428, Feb. 2015.
[18] K. EL KHADIRI, O. LABOUIDYA, N. ELKAMOUN, and R.
[2] B. Carpenter and S. Jiang, “Transmission and Processing of IPv6 HILAL, “Performance Analysis of Video Conferencing over
Extension Headers,” RFC 7045, Dec. 2013. Various IPv4/IPv6 Transition Mechanisms,” IJCSNS, vol. 18, no.
[3] A. Hinds, A. Atojoko, and S. Y. Zhu, “Evaluation of OSPF and 7, pp. 83–88, 2018.
EIGRP routing protocols for ipv6,” International Journal of Future [19] J. Kaur and P. Singh, “Comparative Study of OSPFv 3 IS-IS and
Computer and Communication, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 287, 2013. OSPFv3_IS-IS Protocols using OPNET,” IJARCET, vol. 3, no. 8,
[4] P. Aggarwal, “Review on RIP and OSPF in IPv6 Network,” pp. 2656–2662, 2014.
IJCEA, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 69–75, 2014. [20] G. Malkin and R. Minnear, “rfc 2080: Ripng for ipv6,” RFC 2080,
[5] S. U. Masruroh, F. Robby, and N. Hakiem, “Performance 1997.
evaluation of routing protocols RIPng, OSPFv3, and EIGRP in an [21] R. Narula and P. Aggarwal, “Performance Evaluation of RIP and
IPv6 network,” presented at the Informatics and Computing (ICIC), OSPF in IPv6 using OPNET 14.5 Simulator,” International journal
International Conference on, 2016, pp. 111–116. of technical research and applications, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 37–41,
[6] R. Whitfield and S. Y. Zhu, “A comparison of OSPFv3 and 2014.
EIGRPv6 in a small IPv6 enterprise network,” Int. J. Adv. Comput. [22] N. Kumari, E. B. Sharma, and R. K. Saini, “Comparative Study of
Sci. Appl. IJACSA, 2015. RIPng and OSPFV3 with IPV6,” International Journal of Advanced
[7] A. A. Jaafar, S. Salim, L. A. Tiron, and Z. M. Hussin, Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, vol. 6,
“Performance evaluation of OSPFv3 and IS-IS routing protocol on no. 9, 2016.
ipv6 network,” presented at the Engineering Technology and [23] K. P. Singh, P. K. Gupta, and G. Singh, “Performance Evaluation
Technopreneurship (ICE2T), 2017 International Conference on, of Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol in IPv6 Network,”
2017, pp. 1–5. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.4311, 2013.
[8] C. Wijaya, “Performance analysis of dynamic routing protocol [24] V. Veselỳ, V. Rek, and O. Ryšavỳ, “Enhanced Interior Gateway
EIGRP and OSPF in IPv4 and IPv6 network,” presented at the Routing Protocol with IPv4 and IPv6 Support for OMNeT++,” in
Informatics and Computational Intelligence (ICI), 2011 First Simulation and Modeling Methodologies, Technologies and
International Conference on, 2011, pp. 355–360. Applications, Springer, 2015, pp. 65–82.
[9] R. Hinden, “Internet protocol, version 6 (IPv6) specification,” RFC [25] V. Goyal and G. Arora, “Implementation of Enhanced Interior
8200, Jul. 2017. Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) in IPv6 Network,” Research
 Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.
90–95, 2017.
[26] B. Rathi and E. F. Singh, “Performance Analysis of Distance
Vector and Link State Routing Protocols,” International Journal of
Computer Science Trends and Technology (IJCST), vol. 3, no. 4,
Aug. 2015.
[27] R. Coltun, D. Ferguson, and J. Moy, “A. Lindem," Ospf for Ipv6,”
RFC 5340, July, 2008.
[28] M. M. I. Sunvy and M. N. U. Majumder, “Comparative Analysis of
Two Prominent Routing Protocols in IPv6 Network: OSPFv3 &
EIGRPv6,” PhD Thesis, East West University, 2016.
[29] S. R. Javid and S. K. Dubey, “A systematic review of performance
analysis and implementation of OSPFv3 in IPv6 network,”
presented at the Computing for Sustainable Global Development
(INDIACom), 2016 3rd International Conference on, 2016, pp.
4051–4057.
[30] C. E. Hopps, “Routing IPv6 with IS-IS,” RFC 5308, Oct. 2008.
[31] T. Przygienda, “M-ISIS: multi topology (MT) routing in
Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs),” RFC 5120,
Feb. 2008.
[32] T. Bates, Y. Rekhter, R. Chandra, and D. Katz, “Multiprotocol
Extensions for BGP-4,” RFC 2858, Jun. 2000.
[33] P. R. Marques and F. Dupont, “Use of BGP-4 multiprotocol
extensions for IPv6 inter-domain routing,” RFC 2545, Mar. 1999.
[34] S. P. Shukla, “Comparative Analysis of Distance Vector Routing &
Link State Protocols,” International Journal of Innovative Research
in Computer and Communication Engineering, vol. 3, no. 10, pp.
9533–9539, 2015.
[35] Z. Ashraf and M. Yousaf, “Optimized Routing Information
Exchange in Hybrid IPv4-IPv6 Network using OSPFV3 &
EIGRPv6,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS, vol. 8, no. 4, pp.
220–229, 2017.
[36] S. Tayeb and S. Latifi, “An Evaluative Analysis of DUAL, SPF,
and Bellman-Ford,” Software Networking, vol. 2017, no. 1, pp. 1–
22, 2017.
[37] F. Baker, D. Goethals, A. Lindem, A. Roy, and V. Vallem,
“OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) Extensibility,” RFC
8362, Apr. 2018.
[38] D. Sankar and D. Lancaster, “Routing Protocol Convergence
Comparison using Simulation and Real Equipment,” Advances in
Communications, Computing, Networks and Security, vol. 10, pp.
186–194, 2013.