OK,
i am going out on a limb here ,but i am going to try and answer the
question....or atleast redefine it..
the originall question was
"how does E-IGRP discover networks"
well
first what do we mean by networks.....
"networks are just routers with configured ports" ... i suppose
so...
we could say of networks...that the router discovers networks by the use of
the neibghour discovery proccess
WHY.....we`ll the only way a router can find out about different networks is
from other routers.....or neighbours......
so it will get networks info from the update it recieves form other
routers...
from the white paper
"To distribute routing information throughout a network, EIGRP uses
non-periodic incremental routing updates. That is, EIGRP only sends routing
updates about paths that have changed when those paths change.
"
this would explain WHAT happens but HOW...or more precisely..what does
it....i have been unable to find out...
PLEASE ..NO FLAMES.....NONE OF THIS IS SET IN STONE......i am just trying to
find the answer to what is a tricky question....
please add to this ....one day we find an answer
steve
>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:29:14 -0400
>
>I loved working at Network General, makers of the Sniffer. Whenever a
>question came up about protocol behavior, there were only two legitimate
>replies:
>
>What does the Sniffer show?
>What does the RFC (or IEEE or whatever) document say?
>
>Then I went to Cisco.... Sigh. Huge arguments about very stupid things like
>Ethernet frame formats. Couldn't convince the person with whom I argued to
>even look at it with Sniffer (same person who later removed Sniffer
>material from the CIT class. Sigh) Lots of arguments about other
>protocol-related information. All BS. (will that get through the filters?
>;-)
>
>Your best bet is to research protocol behavior with an analyzer and the
>original source documents when they are available. Try to have arguments
>only with people who have done the same. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.
>
>
>
>Priscilla
>
>At 03:25 PM 7/8/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
> >what's more amazing to me is the disproportional importance the
> >certification materials place on this kind of stuff. We all read the ad
>hoc
> >statement in Lammle or other guides that EIGRP is a hybrid protocol with
> >characteristics of both DV and LS. Of course nowhere in the materials we
> >read are there the kind of detailed explanations, detailed foundations,
> >which support these ad hoc statements.
> >
> >don't even get me started about the L2 vs. L3 switching debate.
> >
> >Fact is, Cisco promulgates a certain outlook, most of which is accurate
> >enough that it makes little difference for all practical purposes. Cisco
> >isn't the only one, either. As a result of an argument elsewhere, I had
> >reason to delve into the esoterics of OSPF virtual links, and the nature
>of
> >tunneling. My research and resulting opinion have put me square in
> >opposition to statements made in Doyle, Moy, and the RFC itself. I
>continue
> >to believe that certain comments were made to provide a conceptual
> >framework, not to state truth about how things really work. I also
>learned
> >that Moy himself, while using the term tunnel in his 1998 book, makes no
> >such reference in his 2001 book, leading me to believe others may have
> >suggested to him that there was misunderstanding due to his earlier
> >statement. But that debate continues because after all, there it is in
>print
> >from an expert.
> >
> >I believe there are more important things to know than which protocols
>are
> >link state and which protocols are distance vector. Like what LS and DV
> >really are. Thanks to Howard for offering some detail here. For example,
>how
> >is the routing table created? what happens to get routes into a routing
> >table? And what is the basis for redistribution? How does the router (
>not
> >routing ) process determine how and what to redistribute? Knowing that
>would
> >go a long way towards explaining some anomalies I and others have seen.
> >
> >I suppose it is human nature to believe that because you have passed a
>test
> >you inherently know all there is to know. I certainly go through similar
> >moods myself. I also find that as I learn more I find the early readings
>I
> >did, and the early explanations, shallow and unsatisfactory.
> >
> >As to whether or not any vendor certification retains or has lost value,
>I
> >leave that for other times and other places. To quote Mr. Science, "I
>know
> >more than you do, because I have a Master's degree - in Science!" Cuts to
> >the heart of the question, doesn't it?
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> >Howard C. Berkowitz
> >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:41 AM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
> >
> >
> > >Howard,
> > > In looking into this I was amazed by the lack of
> >information
> > >on these very specific parts of the protocol itself. However, I can't
> >seem
> > >to find anything that would seem as a source other than the Cisco
> > >white-paper and Don Dettmore's EIGRP white-paper on the CZone. I'm
>also
> > >using Doyle's Routing TCP/IP and Adv. IP Network Design.
> >
> >I agree there is a severe lack of detail. While I don't have the
> >URLs, unfortunately, there were some fairly detailed presentations a
> >couple of Networkers ago -- I'd imagine they have been kept updated.
> >
> >There are still parts of the protocol, such as the details of the
> >reliable multicast, that as far as I know, Cisco keeps proprietary.
> >Frankly, the lack of availability of detailed information is one
> >reason I avoid EIGRP.
> >
> >Garcia-Luna-Alceves' papers get into the algorithm but not the
> >implementation.
> >
> > >
> > >Could you point out some links that would provide a better reference.
>This
> > >way we could all possibly get a better understanding ourselves.
> > >
> > >TIA
> > >
> > >Nigel..
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Howard C. Berkowitz
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:13 AM
> > >Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
> > >
> > >
> > >> >abc wrote,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover
> > >neighbor.
> > >> >
> > >> >EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover
>neighbor
> > >>
> > >> No, EIGRP does not use a link state mechanism for neighbor
>discovery.
> > >> It does, however, use a hello subprotocol, and the link state
> > >> protocols (ISIS and OSPF) use different hello subprotocols.
> > >>
> > >> Neighbor discovery in RIP and IGRP are fairly tightly coupled to
> > >> distance vector, because one of the first notifications of a
> > >> neighbor's existence is that it sends a routing update. (Actually,
>in
> > >> RIP at least -- I'd have to research IGRP -- you first hear a
>routing
> > >> table query from a neighbor, which sends its table only after you
> > >> respond). In EIGRP, ISIS, and OSPF, neighbor discovery is
>completely
> > >> decoupled from the topology update mechanism.
> > >>
> > >> >.
> > >> >
> > >> >Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256.
> > >> >
> > >> >No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable.
> > >>
> > >> I question your observations, because you have not really
> > >> demonstrated you understand how the protocols work. Now, please
> > >> understand I am not trying to be overly critical. Many courses and
> > >> books teach it incorrectly, with marketing confusion about "hybrid"
> > >> protocols, and especially the erroneous association of hello
> > >> subprotocols with link state. To achieve real understanding, one
>has
> > >> to dig beyond the confusion and often go back to source material.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >""John Feuerherd"" Hello all,
> > >> >> I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a
>question
> >on
> > >a
> > >> >> sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that EIGRP
>and
> > >IGRP
> > >> >use
> > >> >> the same network discovery method. I know they use the same
>metrics,
> > >but
> > >> I
> > >> >> am under the impression that they use different methods when
> > >discovering
> > >> >> networks. Am I correct in that statement?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks in advance,
> > >> >> JF
>________________________
>
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>http://www.priscilla.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11912&t=11273
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
