RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
ospf allows you to go for small segmentations called area. The routing updates can be summarized and filtered area-specific. though Eigrp supports summrization whereever you want, ospf has beeen adopted most worldwide. EIGRP is cisco propriety. cheers! suresh CNE,MCSE+I,CLS,SCSA,CCNA,CCNP,MCNS,CCIE(Write) http://www.sureshhomepage.com From: Angel Leiva Reply-To: Angel Leiva To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:03:14 -0500 Rob, If your network environment is IP based, and if MPLS support is on your backbone's growth path, you'll be better off using OSPF now. On top of that, OSPF offers faster convergence time, and is Industry Standards compliant (allowing your company to use non-cisco gear as well, i.e. Juniper/Foundry/others, unless your company wants to remain a cisco shop). So, from a routing protocol stand point, you shouldn't have interoperability issues using OSPF. My 2 cents, hth, Angel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mears, Rob Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] 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 _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=30014t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I think you may have misunderstood my statement and I probably wasn't exactly clear but when I said multi routing protocol routers I meant multi IP routing protocols:) Still confused...are you saying a single IP router can run different routing protocols? True statement if so. Yes, hence cutting over to another routing protocol is quite trivial I think that addresses your statement. Dave David Madland CCIE# 2016 Senior Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29068t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Yes dave Ben Liang Tan wrote: Dave, when you said multi IP routing protocols does it mean a router runs RIP, EIGRP, OSPF/BGP within 1 or more interfaces? TIA. BL Tan From: MADMAN Reply-To: MADMAN To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:28:11 -0500 Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? I think you may have misunderstood my statement and I probably wasn't exactly clear but when I said multi routing protocol routers I meant multi IP routing protocols:) I think that addresses your statement. Dave David Madland CCIE# 2016 Senior Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29069t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I think you may have misunderstood my statement and I probably wasn't exactly clear but when I said multi routing protocol routers I meant multi IP routing protocols:) Still confused...are you saying a single IP router can run different routing protocols? True statement if so. Yes, hence cutting over to another routing protocol is quite trivial OK, we are in agreement, then, on the technical capability. When I deal with the EIGRP vs. OSPF debate (OSPF vs ISIS is a very different one), I have to recount a discussion, well lubricated with beer, with a discussion with a very senior Cisco consulting engineer. He observed to build big networks, you have to have clue what you are doing. Then, he burped. Man does not own beer; man only leases it. But, EIGRP allows you to be clueless and survive longer than OSPF. The two of us generally preferred using OSPF, unless there was a specific need for Apple or Novell. But, in fairness, we are both very experienced network architects, and our experience has taught us that rigorous design at the start of a network design leads to much easier lives when you have to expand and troubleshoot. OSPF _forces_ you to do that design, while EIGRP won't at first -- but may need it when you scale. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29074t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Concerning the novell case, it's a non-trivial task to migrate to a native ip environment, enough so that it discourages even the people who ignore the overwhelming power of corporate inertia and attempt to ditch ipx. Howard C. Berkowitz @groupstudy.com on 12/12/2001 08:13:44 PM Please respond to Howard C. Berkowitz Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? Patrick Ramsey wrote: 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 -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29086t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
This is wisdom... I can only add that the whole EIGRP v OSPF debate, and EIGRP's alleged scaling problems are mostly related to the lack of clueful design from the onset. The things you have to do to get good scaling from EIGRP are the very same things you do by default when designing for OSPF (ie: Good Hierarchical IP Design, effective summarization, etc). When designing an OSPF network, things are things that *must* be taken into account at the beginning. More often than not, in an EIGRP network, these things have been overlooked because EIGRP does not strictly require them in a small to medium-ish environment, and as a result, when the environment grows larger, these poor design choices manifest themselves as instability, and people tend to blame the protocol, rather than themselves. Had they followed good design principles from the beginning, they would most likely be satisfied by EIGRP's stability and scalability. That said, a good understanding of OSPF will make a person a better engineer/designer in the EIGRP arena as well. Good practice applies equally to the two protocols. - Original Message - From: Howard C. Berkowitz To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:06 AM Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] He observed to build big networks, you have to have clue what you are doing. Then, he burped. Man does not own beer; man only leases it. But, EIGRP allows you to be clueless and survive longer than OSPF. The two of us generally preferred using OSPF, unless there was a specific need for Apple or Novell. But, in fairness, we are both very experienced network architects, and our experience has taught us that rigorous design at the start of a network design leads to much easier lives when you have to expand and troubleshoot. OSPF _forces_ you to do that design, while EIGRP won't at first -- but may need it when you scale. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29090t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
I second that. We have been on a 2 year 3 boss mission to ditch IPX for 300 servers!!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Concerning the novell case, it's a non-trivial task to migrate to a native ip environment, enough so that it discourages even the people who ignore the overwhelming power of corporate inertia and attempt to ditch ipx. Howard C. Berkowitz @groupstudy.com on 12/12/2001 08:13:44 PM Please respond to Howard C. Berkowitz Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Kevin Cullimore) Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? Patrick Ramsey wrote: 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 -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29096t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Hi All, To your question; we are, as all should be, a pure IP and Cisco shop (:. As to why we originally went Eigrp, who knows it was before my time but I would guess Cisco had some influence on it, but now we are growing and plan, no not plan but have bought the routers\switches for 400 locations and will be deploying @ the beginning of the year. I know EIGRP will scale well and will handle our growth for the time being. As my research points, we will be good with EIGRP for a long time and the differences I found between the two are really nominal. But since the network we are rolling out is in parallel to the present, we do not have to worry about the migration part, so we have the opportunity to do it right and impress people long after I am gone. So correct me where I am wrong and please show me the light OSPF or EIGRP. Thanks Rob -Original Message- From: Gregg Malcolm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Rob, Few questions. What routed protocols you plan to run? Just IP or IP/IPX/AT,etc.? Any other vendor equipment other than cisco? Firewalls running OSPF for failover? Why did you initially choose EIGRP? Does the network design lend itself well to a backbone area? Redundant links (including DDR) ? I think if you can answer some of these questions, it will help the group give you a better response. Gregg Mears, Rob wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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=7i=29105t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
One reason that you may prefer EIGRP over OSPF would be in a particluarly meshy environment. In an OSPF network, inter-area traffic must pass through area zero (commonly called the core). Traffic between Areas 1 and 2 must be sent through Area 0, even if Areas 1 and 2 have a direct connection. This is the default behavior, which can be addressed in a number of ways (virtual links, extending area 0, etc), but you'd hardly want to start off having to resort to this kind of trickery. EIGRP, on the other hand, would handle this configuration out of the box, and you would get desirable traffic flows without having to do anything fancy. 1 year ago, I was deploying a network for a large federal institution that had 3 Main locations, and over 2000 satellite locations that were triple homed to each... The main locations had dozens of routers, and each router hundreds of connections (Frame-relay circuits, with a lot of DLCIs per circuit). There was no good location to define as Area 0, as an equal amount of traffic would be going to each of the 3 main locations. OSPF, as much as I like it, is not well suited to an environment like this. EIGRP, with a good addressing plan, and good summarization, handles it like a champ, and will continue to scale even if they add another 2000 sites. Summarize everything you can, everywhere that you can, and keep that in mind while figuring out your addressing. The biggest mistake that people make when deploying, or living with, and OSPF network, is that they tend to get sloppy with Area 0. If your topology doesn't allow for a clearly defined core, then you probably shouldn't try to force it... OSPF will make you pay later, and dearly. Look at your topology, and the flow of traffic that you anticipate... From what you have described below, you seem to have a topolgy that would probably work well with OSPF. It sounds like you will have a Core location, and that you anticipate any Remote-site to Remote-site traffic to come through the core anyway. OSPF will probably work out well for you, but don't feel like you have to switch to it. An elegantly designed network, with good addressing and summarization is impressive regardless of routing protocol. Don't let it become a Holy War... Protocol selection should be dictated by topology, design goals, and supporability (Does your networking Team have sufficient experience with OSPF? They already know, or are at least familiar with EIGRP); don't let it become about religion. ;) Alan~ - Original Message - From: Mears, Rob To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:40 PM Subject: RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Hi All, To your question; we are, as all should be, a pure IP and Cisco shop (:. As to why we originally went Eigrp, who knows it was before my time but I would guess Cisco had some influence on it, but now we are growing and plan, no not plan but have bought the routers\switches for 400 locations and will be deploying @ the beginning of the year. I know EIGRP will scale well and will handle our growth for the time being. As my research points, we will be good with EIGRP for a long time and the differences I found between the two are really nominal. But since the network we are rolling out is in parallel to the present, we do not have to worry about the migration part, so we have the opportunity to do it right and impress people long after I am gone. So correct me where I am wrong and please show me the light OSPF or EIGRP. Thanks Rob -Original Message- From: Gregg Malcolm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Rob, Few questions. What routed protocols you plan to run? Just IP or IP/IPX/AT,etc.? Any other vendor equipment other than cisco? Firewalls running OSPF for failover? Why did you initially choose EIGRP? Does the network design lend itself well to a backbone area? Redundant links (including DDR) ? I think if you can answer some of these questions, it will help the group give you a better response. Gregg Mears, Rob wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29125t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What about ISIS? Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
In an environment that large with no clearly defined area 0, would not IS-IS also be a viable choice from a technological standpoint? I understand that not as many people are familiar with it but it seems like it might be a good fit there. It seems like the argument is always EIGRP vs OSPF, but I think people really should consider IS-IS in the mix if it fits. What are your thoughts? John W. Alan Robertson 12/13/01 12:14:40 PM One reason that you may prefer EIGRP over OSPF would be in a particluarly meshy environment. In an OSPF network, inter-area traffic must pass through area zero (commonly called the core). Traffic between Areas 1 and 2 must be sent through Area 0, even if Areas 1 and 2 have a direct connection. This is the default behavior, which can be addressed in a number of ways (virtual links, extending area 0, etc), but you'd hardly want to start off having to resort to this kind of trickery. EIGRP, on the other hand, would handle this configuration out of the box, and you would get desirable traffic flows without having to do anything fancy. 1 year ago, I was deploying a network for a large federal institution that had 3 Main locations, and over 2000 satellite locations that were triple homed to each... The main locations had dozens of routers, and each router hundreds of connections (Frame-relay circuits, with a lot of DLCIs per circuit). There was no good location to define as Area 0, as an equal amount of traffic would be going to each of the 3 main locations. OSPF, as much as I like it, is not well suited to an environment like this. EIGRP, with a good addressing plan, and good summarization, handles it like a champ, and will continue to scale even if they add another 2000 sites. Summarize everything you can, everywhere that you can, and keep that in mind while figuring out your addressing. The biggest mistake that people make when deploying, or living with, and OSPF network, is that they tend to get sloppy with Area 0. If your topology doesn't allow for a clearly defined core, then you probably shouldn't try to force it... OSPF will make you pay later, and dearly. Look at your topology, and the flow of traffic that you anticipate... From what you have described below, you seem to have a topolgy that would probably work well with OSPF. It sounds like you will have a Core location, and that you anticipate any Remote-site to Remote-site traffic to come through the core anyway. OSPF will probably work out well for you, but don't feel like you have to switch to it. An elegantly designed network, with good addressing and summarization is impressive regardless of routing protocol. Don't let it become a Holy War... Protocol selection should be dictated by topology, design goals, and supporability (Does your networking Team have sufficient experience with OSPF? They already know, or are at least familiar with EIGRP); don't let it become about religion. ;) Alan~ - Original Message - From: Mears, Rob To: Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:40 PM Subject: RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Hi All, To your question; we are, as all should be, a pure IP and Cisco shop (:. As to why we originally went Eigrp, who knows it was before my time but I would guess Cisco had some influence on it, but now we are growing and plan, no not plan but have bought the routers\switches for 400 locations and will be deploying @ the beginning of the year. I know EIGRP will scale well and will handle our growth for the time being. As my research points, we will be good with EIGRP for a long time and the differences I found between the two are really nominal. But since the network we are rolling out is in parallel to the present, we do not have to worry about the migration part, so we have the opportunity to do it right and impress people long after I am gone. So correct me where I am wrong and please show me the light OSPF or EIGRP. Thanks Rob -Original Message- From: Gregg Malcolm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Rob, Few questions. What routed protocols you plan to run? Just IP or IP/IPX/AT,etc.? Any other vendor equipment other than cisco? Firewalls running OSPF for failover? Why did you initially choose EIGRP? Does the network design lend itself well to a backbone area? Redundant links (including DDR) ? I think if you can answer some of these questions, it will help the group give you a better response. Gregg Mears, Rob wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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 E
Re: What about ISIS? Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
John, Technologically speaking, IS-IS would probably be very well suited to such an environment, but more often than not, IS-IS only hits on two of the three criteria I most base a selection on: 1.Topology - Good Fit. Unlike OSPF, IS-IS isn't limited to a two-tier hierarchy, nor is there a need for a single core. This flexibility can carry you a long way. 2.Design Goals - Good Fit. No question that you'll get good route selection, and most direct traffic flows, considering roughly equal amounts of traffic between each of the satellite locations, and the three main locations. 3.Supportable - ??? - This is usually the Gotcha that takes IS-IS out of the running in selecting a routing protocol. Like you mentioned, there just aren't a whole lot of people with a good deal of IS-IS experience, and those that have it are typically working in Big ISP environments, not Corporate networks. If this were for my own network, yeah, I could probably go with IS-IS and lead a happy life... As fate would have it, I design, deploy, and troubleshoot networks for other people (I'm a consultant). When I mention IS-IS to my cleints, they think I am referring to a goddess from the ancient Egyptian pantheon, or the kids TV show that ran parallel to Captain Marvel during the '70s (I loved his cape... Looked like it was made from Paper Towels). They don't know that there's a routing protocol of the same name. In Europe, perhaps there is a greater awareness of IS-IS in non-ISP environments, but in here in the US, it continues to languish for the most part as The Undiscovered Protocol. Alan~ - Original Message - From: John Neiberger To: ; Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: What about ISIS? Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] In an environment that large with no clearly defined area 0, would not IS-IS also be a viable choice from a technological standpoint? I understand that not as many people are familiar with it but it seems like it might be a good fit there. It seems like the argument is always EIGRP vs OSPF, but I think people really should consider IS-IS in the mix if it fits. What are your thoughts? John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29137t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Rob, If your network environment is IP based, and if MPLS support is on your backbone's growth path, you'll be better off using OSPF now. On top of that, OSPF offers faster convergence time, and is Industry Standards compliant (allowing your company to use non-cisco gear as well, i.e. Juniper/Foundry/others, unless your company wants to remain a cisco shop). So, from a routing protocol stand point, you shouldn't have interoperability issues using OSPF. My 2 cents, hth, Angel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mears, Rob Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] 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=7i=29157t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
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=7i=28966t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
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=7i=28970t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
EIGRP- easy to implement, less CPU/memory intensive than OSPF but proprietary. OSPF- Takes more thought, can be more CPU/memory intensive, standard. If you running a hub and spoke environment and don't mind proprietary protocol I would run EIGRP. Only allow default to the remotes. Real simple, works great. Dave Mears, Rob wrote: 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 -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28973t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Rob, Few questions. What routed protocols you plan to run? Just IP or IP/IPX/AT,etc.? Any other vendor equipment other than cisco? Firewalls running OSPF for failover? Why did you initially choose EIGRP? Does the network design lend itself well to a backbone area? Redundant links (including DDR) ? I think if you can answer some of these questions, it will help the group give you a better response. Gregg Mears, Rob wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... 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=7i=28974t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
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=7i=28980t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave Patrick Ramsey wrote: 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 -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=28988t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? Patrick Ramsey wrote: 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 -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 Emotion should reflect reason not guide it Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29006t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? I think you may have misunderstood my statement and I probably wasn't exactly clear but when I said multi routing protocol routers I meant multi IP routing protocols:) I think that addresses your statement. Dave David Madland CCIE# 2016 Senior Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29018t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? I think you may have misunderstood my statement and I probably wasn't exactly clear but when I said multi routing protocol routers I meant multi IP routing protocols:) Still confused...are you saying a single IP router can run different routing protocols? True statement if so. I think that addresses your statement. Dave David Madland CCIE# 2016 Senior Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29023t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966]
Dave, when you said multi IP routing protocols does it mean a router runs RIP, EIGRP, OSPF/BGP within 1 or more interfaces? TIA. BL Tan From: MADMAN Reply-To: MADMAN To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OSPF or EIGRP [7:28966] Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:28:11 -0500 Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I hear that argument a lot, if you never plan to use another vendor It's really quite specious as it's not at all difficult to cutover from routing EIGRP to OSPF or vis versa if the need arises. Not only are Cisco's multi protocol, they are multi routing protocol routers. To convert simply enable both protocols. Once they are both up and running get rid of routing protocol that fell from your favor, wallah, done. MHO Dave True, but unless you already have a legacy desktop routing protocol base, how likely is it to need the Appletalk and Novell capabilities, now that both those upper layer suites are native IP? I think you may have misunderstood my statement and I probably wasn't exactly clear but when I said multi routing protocol routers I meant multi IP routing protocols:) I think that addresses your statement. Dave David Madland CCIE# 2016 Senior Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=29036t=28966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
