I don't think there's a correct answer to your question, as I could make an
argument for either protocol if forced. However...
Personally I like OSPF in the core better than EIGRP for multiple reasons:
1) It's not proprietary. I can mix and match manufacturers.
2) There are more technicians familiar with OSPF than with EIGRP (or at
least that used to be the case).
3) By designing stubby areas, totally stubby areas, and not-so-stubby
areas properly, I can easily control the number of LSAs that flow through
any given area of the network.
4) OSPF is a very quiet protocol in a stable network.
One of my biggest complaints (and frankly it's not a very big one) is that
the convergence time could be quite long (default 46 seconds) compared to a
default 16 seconds for EIGRP.
as always, your mileage may vary.
Craig
At 01:19 PM 5/31/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>What are the pros and cons of running OSPF over EIGRP in the Core of the
>network? In relation to troubleshooting as well as convergence?
>
>The Network:
>Core - 4 fully meshed 3660's each connected to a Nokia/Checkpoint Firewall
>connected to 2600 border routers (connected to UUNet backbone).
>The border routers run BGP4, and the Core's run OSPF.
>Each Core router is connected to 8-14 satellite offices, a mix of 2500,
>2600, and 1600 series routers. Each of these 4 regions runs EIGRP and has a
>backup router connected to 2 cores.
>
>Thanks,
>Susan
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6665&t=6634
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
