Perhaps an out of the box thought, but are you running ATM just as a convenient fast technology, or for circuit orientation/QoS? If the latter, consider that traffic engineering extensions are being designed for OSPF and ISIS, but I haven't seen much Cisco work on TE for EIGRP.
The 50 router limit is very conservative, affected by the CPU power of the routers and the stability of the links. Also, access routers that use static/default, even floating static default, with static redistribution at the first routers with multiple paths, don't count against this limit. Yes, I agree that EIGRP often is less CPU intensive than OSPF, but it may not be an issue. For that matter, carriers routinely run 1000+ ISIS routers in an area. >IMHO, EIGRP is the better of the two. But it's also IMHO that one should >never stray from the standards. If you know without a doubt that no matter >what happens, you will stay a cisco shop, then eigrp offers more >functionallity. Remember also cisco suggests 50 routers in one area, so >proper planning needs to be done for your edge routers and core routers. > >-Patrick > >Or you can say screw it and use static routes! : ) > >>>> "Mears, Rob" 12/12/01 03:54PM >>> >Hi all, > >We are in the middle of building out a new ATM network for the Core and on >the outside we are going to be running about 80 3640 or 2600. We are in a >big debate about the routing protocol, we are currently EIGRP. > >I have collected lots of info off Cisco's Web site about the two but wanted >to hear it from the Engineers in the trenches. >What's your take on it? If it were you what would you run (EIGRP, OSPF) and >why? > > > >Thanks >Rob Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=28980&t=28966 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
