Hal, I agree. IGRP is a valuable teaching tool. Much like we used to teach BASIC to students before introducing more advanced programming languages. Done correctly, you could even teach Top Down, Structured Progamming techniques with BASIC. The same concept is true with IGRP.
Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI Community College of Southern Nevada Cisco ATC/Regional Networking Academy "Logan, Harold" wrote: > You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While > I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is > useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept > of composite metrics, poison reverse, holddown timers, split horizon, and > unequal-cost load balancing, but you don't have multicast updates, neighbor > relationships, incremental updates, and VLSM's adding to the confusion. > > If EIGRP replaces IGRP on the CCNA, then hopefully the certification team > will draw a clear line indicating which features of eigrp will be tested and > which ones won't. The way things are right now, IGRP makes for a smooth > transition from the CCNA to the CCNP Routing exam. Someone who understands > IGRP doesn't need to reinvent the wheel to learn EIGRP, and once one has > supernetting and neighbor relationships in his or her belt, they can deal > with OSPF area types and LSA's and the like. > > Hal Logan CCAI, CCDP, CCNP:Voice > Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty > Computing & Engineering Technology > Manatee Community College > > -----Original Message----- > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44251&t=43994 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
