Forgot to send this to list as well. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Mandulak" To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:13 PM Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
> Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link state. > He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP study > guide for more info. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > To: > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:19 PM > Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > > > At 02:44 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote: > > >Lamme's CCNA study guide states that the courde and exam only covers > > >distance-vector routing protocols (RIP and IGRP). > > > > If it only covers distance-vector, then it could cover EIGRP also. EIGRP > is > > also distance-vector. I don't think the test does cover it, but it's not > > because the test only covers distance-vector. It's probably because of all > > the extra features in EIGRP, such as the diffusing update algorithm > (DUAL), > > with the feasible successors and all that other BS. Come to think of it, > > maybe I'm glad I don't have to cover it! ;-) > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" > > >To: > > >Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM > > >Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994] > > > > > > > > > > Well, it occurs to me that IGRP would be easy to implement even > without > > > > Cisco's permission. ;-) It's a simple protocol, for one thing. Also, > the > > > > Rutgers paper that describes IGRP has been out for years. Cisco never > > > > objected to it. > > > > > > > > EIGRP would not be easy to implement without Cisco's blessings, > developer > > > > support, licensed code, etc. We have probably all tried to figure out > > some > > > > detail of EIGRP or other and run into a brick wall. (For example, what > > >does > > > > an router EIGRP really do with the MTU that is passed around in > Updates? > > >;-) > > > > > > > > On a related tangent, will they remove IGRP from CCNA? I'm teaching a > > > > custom CCNA class next month, using my own materials. I find it > annoying > > > > that I have to sort of downgrade my materials to teach IGRP theory and > > > > hands-on instead of the EIGRP I would prefer to teach and is already > in > > my > > > > materials. But I think I'm right that CCNA expects IGRP and not EIGRP? > > > > > > > > Thx > > > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > At 04:02 AM 5/13/02, nrf wrote: > > > > >In-line > > > > > wrote in message > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > > Nokia might support it, but I have been (fairly reliably) told > that > > >Cisco > > > > > > will *not* be supporting IGRP as of one of the newest IOS > releases. > > I > > > > > > can't find the announcement on CCO (if there is one), so take with > a > > > > grain > > > > > > of salt, but a Cisco instructor was quite adamant about this last > > >week. > > > > > > > > > >That makes sense, considering it's literally been years since I've > > >actually > > > > >seen a bonafide production network running IGRP. So it makes sense > > that > > > > >Cisco is finally ditching this dead wood. > > > > > > > > > >But I'm not asking this question because I'm champing at the bit to > > >install > > > > >a mixed Cisco/Nokia IGRP network. No, I'm asking because if it's > true > > >that > > > > >Nokia really does support IGRP, then that begs the question - what > other > > > > >supposedly Cisco-proprietary technologies are like this too? I'm not > > > > >talking about situations like what Howard stated where Cisco actually > > has > > >an > > > > >agreement to provide its technology to other vendors (somehow I doubt > > >that > > > > >Cisco and Nokia have such an agreement), but I'm talking about > > >full-blown > > > > >vendor compatibility between some other vendor and Cisco. For > example, > > >does > > > > >anybody know of another vendor that supports, say, EIGRP? Or CDP? > Now > > >you > > > > >might say that it would be impossible for another vendor to support > > these > > > > >technologies, but, hey, Nokia apparently somehow managed to support > > IGRP, > > >so > > > > >why exactly couldn't somebody else support, say, EIGRP? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JMcL > > > > > > ----- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 13/05/2002 04:44 > pm ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "nrf" > > > > > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > 13/05/2002 01:42 pm > > > > > > Please respond to "nrf" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > cc: > > > > > > Subject: Is IGRP actually supported by other > vendors? > > > > > > [7:43994] > > > > > > Is this part of a business decision process?: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just found this while surfing around. > > > > > > > > > > > > "As a network device, the Nokia IP330 supports a comprehensive > suite > > >of > > > > > > IP-routing functions and protocols, including RIPv1/RIPv2, IGRP, > OSPF > > >and > > > > > > BGP4 for unicast traffic..." > > > > > > http://www.nokia.com/securitysolutions/platforms/330.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Every piece of literature I've ever read has stated without fail > that > > > > IGRP > > > > > > is proprietary to Cisco. Yet here's Nokia brazenly claiming that > > they > > >in > > > > > > fact support IGRP. What's up with that? Unfortunately I don't > have > > >an > > > > > > Ipso > > > > > > box lying around that I can actually experiment with. Can anyone > > >confirm > > > > > > whether this is true and whether it provides complete > > interoperability > > > > > > with > > > > > > Cisco? > > > > ________________________ > > > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > > http://www.priscilla.com > > ________________________ > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44100&t=43994 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
