> Thanks for the response Howard.
>
> >It's an "urban legend" that classful vs. classless has ANYTHING to do
> >with something being link state or distance vector. It's a
> >historical accident that the first dynamic routing protocols,
> >developed when there was no such thing as classless addressing, were
> >distance vector. Indeed, RIPv2 is fully classless although a quite
> >old design.
>
> If this is the case, then why didn't Cisco just call EIGRP a link-state
> routing protocol? The fact that EIGRP uses classful network statements
> seemed like the only thing that differentiates it from OSPF. It doesn't
make
> sense why they wouldn't abandon the idea of distance vector and just call
it
> link-state.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Fred
Well, even if you called it link state, that doesn't make it so. EIGRP is
distance vector in behavior. It's not even close to being link state, in my
opinion. Cisco calls it a hybrid because it is a fast, low bandwidth
alternative to link state that utilizes incremental updates and does not
need to broadcast its entire routing table periodically.
>From a marketing perspective, they needed a way to differentiate it from the
other DV protocols, and calling it a hybrid does exactly that. It is
different in several ways from RIP and IGRP, but it is still distance
vector, not link state.
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
