dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
508
share rss forum feed


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

[OT] cisco opening eigrp?

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_InjAmW5rI


announced at live and found its way to my facebook feed.

interesting -- but i don't see it being a game-changer. most people who have wanted a robust protocol without vendor lock-in either (a) went with ospf or is-is at the start or (b) took the lumps and performed the igp migration years ago.

thoughts?

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

nosx

join:2004-12-27
00000
kudos:5

1 edit

Ah the unnecessary protocol that wont die.

I only see it these days in small shops, people supporting big networks moved to ospf+bgp long ago with the death of frame-relay.

Who are the other vendors that are supposedly going to pick this up? If anybody does it I would expect the same poorly emulated attempt as TACACS and PVRST+ support on non-cisco gear. I cant imagine the customer demand will be that large either way.


aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4

1 edit

said by nosx:

I only see it these days in small shops, people supporting big networks moved to ospf+bgp long ago with the death of frame-relay.

Who are the other vendors that are supposedly going to pick this up? If anybody does it I would expect the same poorly emulated attempt as TACACS and PVRST+ support on non-cisco gear. I cant imagine the customer demand will be that large either way.

Some organizations are Cisco centric in regards of their network gears and core infrastructures (switches, routers, firewalls) and are running EIGRP as their standard IGP. When they do incorporate non-Cisco gears, these gears tend to be non-core infrastructures such as WAN accelerators and Internet proxy that run either BGP or static routes with the Cisco gears.

Those Cisco centric organizations do not have plan to turn into non-Cisco gears as their core infrastructures. In addition, they have been wishing that those non-core infrastructures that are non-Cisco are supporting EIGRP in order to avoid implementing static routes and BGP. This situation I believe is what warrant the EIGRP opening to non-Cisco vendors.

As to who the non-Cisco vendors that will pick up EIGRP? HP could be one of them since their Procurve switch line has been supporting CDP of sort. We'll see how it goes

aryoba
Premium,MVM
join:2002-08-22
kudos:4
reply to nosx

said by nosx:

Ah the unnecessary protocol that wont die.

I won't say EIGRP is unnecessary protocol. In fact a lot of people like it due to its simplicity compared to OSPF, not to mention those hardcore Cisco-centric people that are afraid to touch routing outside EIGRP and static route

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:12
reply to tubbynet

My immediate reaction is "too little, too late." Cisco wants to be more "open," fine and dandy, but the million dollar
question is WHAT are they opening up on EIGRP? The source code? The protocol?

Guess we'll just see what the next 6months brings...

Regards



tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

said by HELLFIRE:

My immediate reaction is "too little, too late." Cisco wants to be more "open," fine and dandy, but the million dollar
question is WHAT are they opening up on EIGRP? The source code? The protocol?

Guess we'll just see what the next 6months brings...

Regards

this is simply to appease the enterprise base.
however -- as more and more enterprises start running mpls at the core -- they'll have to abandon eigrp for a real igp. ospf and is-is have real hooks for things like mpls-te -- which don't exist in eigrp. plus -- making the eigrp to ospf transition is pretty lucrative for me, personally.

every sp is already running a real igp already -- so they won't see a change.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

HELLFIRE
Premium
join:2009-11-25
kudos:12

That explains this NOTE comment in MPLS Fundamentals from CiscoPress

quote:
The only compelling reason to run a link state routing protocol in am MPLS network is TE. For all other
MPLS applications, any routing protocol can do the job. Therefore, you cannot run the distance vector routing
protocol EIGRP when deploying MPLS TE, but you can run it for any other MPLS application
Trying to think where a client would run MPLS and MPLS TE.... again, in my albeit limited time in networking,
haven't seen this before (thankfully).

Regards


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1

2 edits

said by HELLFIRE:

Trying to think where a client would run MPLS and MPLS TE.... again, in my albeit limited time in networking,
haven't seen this before (thankfully).

mpls is just another mechanism of transporting packets across a network backbone. the nice thing about it is that it has nice little features that allow mp-bgp bits to be carried/honoured to allow l3vpns, etc.
mpls-te is essential when you've got traffic that needs to have dedicated throughput through points in the network. additionally -- with hooks like mpls-te frr and so -- a link loss via any sort of transport mechanism can achieve fast failover and reroute so there is minimal (if any) noticeable loss.

(edited to add)
additionally -- i strongly disagree with the authors. while all you'll need for mpls is to carry loopbacks and internal links in igp -- and you can accomplish this with 'rip' -- the difference is planning. sure -- you can run eigrp because its what you're familiar with -- but eventually, you're going to want some sort of extensible mpls-te as your cap-ex for upgrades can't keep pace with traffic levels. you're going to want to ensure that you've got te tunnels and frr where important -- at least for $mission_critical traffic. at that point -- you've got to deal with the mongolian cluster-eff that could be an igp migration -- especially as you've got a large customer-base depending on your network for connectivity.
do it right, the first time. after that -- its set and forget and you can do what you need to for years to come.

eigrp is a toy. not a protocol.

(of course, people like johnson liu (»books.google.com/books?id=fzBOZD···&f=false) may have different opinions on that last statement. i'll pick his brain the next time i see him). ;-P

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."