Rick,
Since you seem so certain, in what way is EIGRP a link-state protocol?
What link-state attributes does it have?
I haven't read all of the article at the link you've given, but I note
that in the intro what it actually says is "Enhanced IGRP integrates the
capabilities of link-state protocols into
distance vector protocols". That doesn't say it is link-state, it says that
it has the
"capabilities" of link-state - I assume they are referring to what
Priscilla referred to; non-periodic, partial, bounded updates.
JMcL
----- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 14/05/2002 09:42 am -----
"Rick"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14/05/2002 08:42 am
Please respond to "Rick"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors?
[7:43994]
Is this part of a business decision process?:
Priscilla,
I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not but the source says
it is considered a Hybrid routing Protocol. check the link for yourself
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm
I myself am not a fan Lammle, but on this one he is right and you are
wrong
and YES I said you are wrong! EIGRP is as much Link-State as it is
Distance
Vector.
Rick
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote:
> >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link
state.
>
> That's wrong. EIGRP is not link-state in any way. EIGRP calculates a
flat
> routing table that lists networks, distance, and next hop (distance
> vectors). If the list contains multiple entries for a destination
(because
> there are multiple ways to reach the destination), the entries are
sorted
> by metric and the one with the lowest metric is selected. This is very
> different than how a link-state protocol functions.
>
> A link-state routing protocol creates a mathematical graph that depicts
the
> network. A link-state protocol implements a sophisticated process,
called
> the Dijkstra algorithm, to determine the shortest path to all points in
the
> graph when the nodes and links in the graph are known. Link-state has a
> specific meaning to computer scientists. You'll find a lot of good stuff
> about it if you search with Google. A lot of it is not related to
routing
> protocols.
>
> EIGRP does have some features that make it different from other
> distance-vector protocols. Although EIGRP still sends vectors with
distance
> information, the updates are non-periodic, partial, and bounded.
> Non-periodic means that updates are sent only when a metric changes
rather
> than at regular intervals. Partial means that updates include only
routes
> that have changed, not every entry in the routing table. Bounded means
that
> updates are sent only to affected routers. These behaviors mean that
EIGRP
> uses very little bandwidth.
>
> EIGRP also determines a feasible successor, which other distance-vector
> protocols don't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in
many
> other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course).
>
> Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote
Lammle
> CCNA fluff.
>
> Priscilla
>
> >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
> ________________________
>
> Priscilla Oppenheimer
> http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44174&t=43994
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
