>Look at all those routing technologies - they are all different;
>except *that* one, it's the same...
>
>Z
Are you quoting Yakov Rekhter: "at a sufficiently high level,
everything is the same?" Not sure I follow your point.
>
>>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: EIGRP clarification
>>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:19:21 -0500
>>
>>> Preparing for my BSCN exam, I have found myself unclear as to whether or
>>>not EIGRP is in fact a Hybrid or Distance-Vector protocol. All the Cisco
>>>classes I've been too have always referred to EIGRP as a Balanced Hybrid
>>>protocol, now studying for my CCNP, I am finding EIGRP referred to as a
>>>Distance-vector protocol???...How is this possible? Thanks...
>>
>>
>> From a technical standpoint, EIGRP is emphatically distance vector.
>> From a marketing standpoint, Cisco has called it "hybrid," which has
>>no accepted technical meaning. Training and certification have picked
>>up that terminology.
>>
>>"Hybrid" is an attempt to differentiate EIGRP, and its DUAL
>>algorithm, from the problems of first and second generation DV
>>protocols. JJ Garcia-Luna-Aceves, the inventor of DUAL, always has
>>called it an advanced DV protocol, and he continues to work on even
>>more advanced DV.
>>
>>There's nothing inherently wrong with DV. EIGRP legitimately has
>>fixed some of the problems of earlier DV protocols, such as the lack
>>of a hello subprotocol and reliable update mechanism. Without these
>>mechanisms, periodic update becomes necessary, and the protocol can't
>>be loop-free.
>>
>>Calling something "hybrid" is about as sensible as saying "route bad,
>>switch good," or "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than
>>others."
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
