I'd have to definatly disagree. IGP wise, EIGRP is easy and fast and it works. If ou need a *lot* of interoperability, use OSPF. Friends don't let friends use BGP as an IGP On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Megatron wrote:
I would say the most interior Routing Protocol that is out there is BGP. It gives a better control of route announcements.
-Megatron
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Andre' Zehl wrote:
Is there an overview on what the dominantly used interior routing protocols are percentagewise in large AS backbones (IBGP, OSPF, IGRP, EIGRP, IS-IS, any?). I don't want to start religous wars on what's the best protocol, I'm rather interested if there is an overview available on the facts of protocols used. Is there an "objective" (vendor-independent) feature-based overview on the compared advantages/disadvantages (especially regarding redistribution) of the various protocols that goes with those numbers? > > Andre' > > zehl@berkom.de >
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. October 26-28, 1998, Atlanta, GA. Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and brightest. http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration. Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
At 12:48 AM 10/16/98 -0400, alex@nac.net wrote:
IGP wise, EIGRP is easy and fast and it works. If ou need a *lot* of interoperability, use OSPF.
Not that I want to perpetuate this thread, but I did want to add at least a couple of observations. One of the reasons why I *like* OSPF is that it somewhat forces you to build your network within a set of architectural constraints. You can't just plug boxes together in a haphazard fashion and expect it to work efficiently -- in order to scale, one needs to partition the network into areas, etc. Ditto for IS-IS. On of the reasons (methinks) why many people like EIGRP is that they can sidestep a lot of architectural planning, plug stuff together in virtually any haphazard manner, and it generally just does the right thing. Of course, I'm not really fond of this approach, but there seem to be a lot of people who are. And, of course, the efficiency depends greatly on how things are plugged together, and how address allocation is done throughout the network (for auto-aggregation), but for the most part, people can just slap stuff together, build a really sloppy network, and it will still hobble along. Like I said, just an observation. - paul
participants (2)
-
alex＠nac.net -
Paul Ferguson