BGP Routing Protocol
Keyword
Border Gateway ProtocolIntra-Autonomous Routing
Autonomous Systems
Inter-Autonomous System Routing
Interior Gateway Protocols
Exterior Gateway Protocols
Open Short Path First
Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol
Date Published
2016-08Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Border Gateway Protocol is the protocol which makes the Internet work. It is used at the Service provider level which is between different Autonomous Systems (AS). An Autonomous System is a single organization which controls the administrative part of a network. Routing with in an Autonomous System is called as Intra-Autonomous routing and routing between different Autonomous Systems is called as Inter-Autonomous System routing. The routing protocols used within an Autonomous System are called Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) and the protocols used between the Autonomous Systems are called Exterior Gateway Protocols. Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Open Short Path First (OSPF) and Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) are the examples for IGP protocols and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the example for EGP protocols. Every routing protocol use some metric to calculate the best path to transfer the routing information. BGP rather than using a particular metric, it uses BGP attributes to select the best path. Once it selects the best path, then it starts sending the updates in the network. Every router implementing BGP in the network, configures this best path in its Routing Information Base. Only one best route is selected and forwarded to the whole network. [17] Due to the tremendous increase in the size of the internet and its users, the convergence time during link failure in the protocol is very high.Description
A Master's Project Presented to the Department of Telecommunications in partial fulfillment for the Master of Science Degree, SUNY Polytechnic Institute.Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Routing Protocols for MANETsThis technology case study focuses on the routing protocols used in mobile ad-hoc networks. For any wireless ad-hoc network, routing is the main concept. Proactive and reactive routing protocols are two such approaches. The ever changing properties like asymmetric links, low transmission power and topology have always been a challenge for the routing protocols. Under such circumstances, the proactive and reactive routing protocols have proved to be inefficient. Each of these approaches has its own disadvantages. To overcome these disadvantages, hybrid routing protocol has been designed. This paper will provide an overview of all the three above mentioned protocols namely proactive routing protocol, reactive routing protocol and hybrid routing protocol with an example each. A comparison between the three routing protocols is also provided in this paper.
-
A Technology Case Study on Integrating Open Stack with SDN for Internet Connectivity using BGPThere were many developments in Internet usage, which resulted in significant increase in Internet routing. With existing networking infrastructure, it is difficult to meet these requirements and causing more cost and less performance. Since network devices are hardware modules, processing them requires more power and more memory. However, if network protocols are developed using software modules, flexibility can be achieved in various programming applications and reduces dependency on hardware. The concept of using networking protocols as a software module can be explained using “Software Defined Networking (SDN).” With SDN, existing infrastructure can be integrated with various applications and centralized control protocols can be developed. One of the key components of SDN is integrating with Cloud Computing, where many applications can be built, which can be used for on-demand services. Integrating cloud computing with SDN will create dynamic networks and reduces infrastructure costs. In this paper, a case was considered for providing better internet connectivity by building public & private networks using Open source cloud technology (OpenStack) and existing distribution environments. For connectivity, BGP was used as routing protocol as it is known to be well- suited for such environments. Both public and private networks were integrated with SDN for centralized control. OpenStack was used to build various network topologies using different plugins through SDN controller. This method allowed to develop SDN controller with global view of OpenStack networks. The same controller was connected to distributed layers using Open Flow protocol. Since, both OpenStack and distributed networks were attached to SDN controller, centralized control of network protocols could be achieved. This model of centralized networks could be very useful in reducing costs and improving network efficiency, especially in large scale deployments.
-
Evidence on the Impact of Internal Control over Financial Reporting on Audit FeesIntroduction: Circa 1992, the dot.com sector created an irrational stock-trading market where the usual “financial” profiles of: Liquidity, Cash Flow from Operations, and Revenue Ggeneration were replaced by Ponzi-esque mayhem. To stabilize the markets, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [PCOAOB] required a second audit opinion: the COSO Opinion on the adequacy of management’s system of Internal Control over Financial Reporting: [ICoFR]. Study Focus: Three COSO-[ICoFR] designations are now required as public information: (i) A “clean” opinion [Is Effective], (ii) Deficiencies are noted, and (iii) Weaknesses reported. Our research interest is to determine, for a panel of randomly selected firms traded on the S&P500 for a eleventen-year period: 2005 to 2015, the nature of the effect that the COSO deficiency reporting protocol has on (i) Audit Fees and (ii) the Market Cap of traded firms. Method: To this end we collected, using the Audit Analytics [WRDS] database, various categories of reported Audit Fees and also Market Cap information. This random sample was classified into two sets: the first group: Is Effective SEC 302 Designation and No COSO issues & the second group: Is Not 100% Effective for which there were SEC 302 Deficiencies or Weaknesses noted. Results: Inferential testing indicates that failure to attend to the PCAOB-COSO imperatives results in a relational where there are higher Audit Fees and a slippage of the firm’s Market Cap compared to the Is Effective Group. The PCAOB’s protocol to require the Audit of the firm’s ICoFR system and make that evaluation public information seems to be an excellent corrective “Carrot and Stick”.
