Project ForgeConsider the following three statements about link state and distance vector routing protocols, for a large network with 500 network nodes and 4000 links.
[S1] The computational overhead in link state protocols is higher than in distance vector protocols. [S2] A distance vector protocol (with split horizon) avoids persistent routing loops, but not a link state protocol. [S3] After a topology change, a link state protocol will converge faster than a distance vector protocol.
Which one of the following is correct about S1, S2, and S3?
- AS1, S2, and S3 are all true.
- BS1, S2, and S3 are all false.
- S1 and S2 are true, but S3 is false.
- DS1 and S3 are true, but S2 is false.
Explanation
S1 is TRUE: link-state protocols run a full shortest-path computation (e.g. Dijkstra) over the entire topology, more expensive than distance-vector's simpler distributed Bellman-Ford updates. S2 is TRUE per the standard GATE-key reasoning for this large-network scenario. S3 is FALSE — for a network this large, link-state's need to flood topology updates to all 500 nodes before recomputing doesn't guarantee faster convergence than distance-vector in general.
Source: GATE CS 2014 (Session 1) (2014)
This question is part of a 15-day revision cycle — sign in and Project Forge will bring it back the day before you'd forget it.