Compare OSPF and RIP as interior routing protocols, focusing on convergence and scalability.

• A. OSPF uses distance-vector; RIP uses link-state
• B. OSPF is a link-state protocol with rapid convergence and scalable for large networks; RIP is distance-vector with hop-limit 15, slower convergence and less scalable.
• C. RIP supports unlimited hops; OSPF max 15 hops
• D. OSPF is deprecated; RIP modern

Answer: (B)

The main idea is how routing protocol design affects how quickly routes settle after a change and how well the protocol scales to larger networks. OSPF uses a link-state approach, where every router builds a complete map of the network from flooded link-state advertisements and then runs a shortest-path calculation to determine routes. This mechanism allows rapid, localized convergence when topology changes occur and supports large networks effectively through hierarchical areas, route summarization, and a flexible cost metric, which keeps routing information manageable as networks grow.

RIP, on the other hand, is a distance-vector protocol that relies on routers sharing hop counts to destinations and updating routes periodically. Its maximum hop limit of 15 restricts reachability, and the combination of periodic updates and simpler looping fixes means slower convergence and reduced scalability in larger or more dynamic networks.

So framing OSPF as a fast-converging, scalable link-state protocol for large networks, and RIP as a slower-converging, less scalable distance-vector protocol, accurately reflects the fundamental differences and why OSPF is typically preferred for bigger environments.