Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 ---------------------------------------- From: "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:50 PM To: nick@flhsi.com, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: EIGRP support !Cisco On 08/01/2014 17:30, Nick Olsen wrote:
Looking for EIGRP support in a platform other than Cisco. Since it was opened up last year. We have a situation where we need to integrate into a network running EIGRP and would like to avoid cisco if at all possible.
Why not use isis or ospf? Both are fully vendor neutral, and they both support mpls networks properly. EIGRP has some interesting features, but the vendor tie-in cost is way too high to even consider using it. IGP migration is quite do-able, even for large networks, and all cisco devices which speak EIGRP will also speak at least ospf, if not isis. Nick
On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:52 AM, Nick Olsen <nick@flhsi.com> wrote:
But this is needed to integrate into an existing network.
Route redistribution?
cringe<
or eBGP? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
On 1/8/14, 10:02 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:52 AM, Nick Olsen <nick@flhsi.com> wrote:
But this is needed to integrate into an existing network.
Route redistribution?
I've done mixed eigrp ospf environments in places where I wasn't responsible for legacy decisions... it worked pretty much like you'd expect, which is fine more or less. but I also don't work there anymore so your mileage may vary...
cringe<
or eBGP?
Is harder to screw up in my experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
-- John Milton
On 08/01/2014 17:52, Nick Olsen wrote:
Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice.
you'll need to pay cisco tax then. Cisco opened up most of eigrp to the ietf as an informational rfc, but didn't release anything related to eigrp stub areas. This means that the ietf release is not that useful if a vendor wanted feature parity with cisco's implementation. So far I'm not aware of any vendors who have implemented it. Maybe some will do so in future. Nick
participants (4)
-
Dobbins, Roland -
joel jaeggli -
Nick Hilliard -
Nick Olsen