Thanks. I had expected that "router bgp ABC" and "router bgp XYZ" did in fact start two processes. I hadn't tried applying a second "router bgp XYZ" to a config to confirm this worked. But as you point out, this isn't allowed (supported) and the router reports the error:
router(config)#router bgp 1234 BGP is already running; AS is 123 I'm surprised that multiple IS-IS processes are not supported (but I don't know diddley about IS-IS so...) Any thoughts on why cisco decided to support multiple OSPF processes (or why other vendors did not)? Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > At 12:34 PM +0000 12/2/02, bergenpeak wrote: > >Anyone know why one can run only a single RIP process on a > cisco > >router? > > > >Thanks > > > > I can't give you a precise reason, but some general comments. > > RIP was never intended for large systems where you might be > able to > make use of multiple processes. You could argue that having > multiple > IGRP processes was a way to add a primitive area structure, and > then > EIGRP needed compatibility. > > Even among the more advanced protocols, the multiple process > per > router has rather little applicability. OSPF is actually the > exception in allowing multiple processes; BGP and ISIS do not. > > AFAIK, no vendor other than Cisco ever implemented multiple > OSPF > processes. Wellfleet/Bay/Nortel definitely did not. > > For things like performance benchmarking for the IETF and such, > we > most typically use Zebra or GateD UNIX boxes to generate > traffic, or > purpose-built high-speed testers. The high-speed testers > typically > don't really understand the protocol, but are playing back > prerecorded traffic and responding to a very small set of > messages. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58401&t=58392 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
