RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
OK, i am going out on a limb here ,but i am going to try and answer the questionor atleast redefine it.. the originall question was "how does E-IGRP discover networks" well first what do we mean by networks. "networks are just routers with configured ports" ... i suppose so... we could say of networks...that the router discovers networks by the use of the neibghour discovery proccess WHY.we`ll the only way a router can find out about different networks is from other routers.or neighbours.. so it will get networks info from the update it recieves form other routers... from the white paper "To distribute routing information throughout a network, EIGRP uses non-periodic incremental routing updates. That is, EIGRP only sends routing updates about paths that have changed when those paths change. " this would explain WHAT happens but HOW...or more precisely..what does iti have been unable to find out... PLEASE ..NO FLAMES.NONE OF THIS IS SET IN STONE..i am just trying to find the answer to what is a tricky question please add to this one day we find an answer steve >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" >Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:29:14 -0400 > >I loved working at Network General, makers of the Sniffer. Whenever a >question came up about protocol behavior, there were only two legitimate >replies: > >What does the Sniffer show? >What does the RFC (or IEEE or whatever) document say? > >Then I went to Cisco Sigh. Huge arguments about very stupid things like >Ethernet frame formats. Couldn't convince the person with whom I argued to >even look at it with Sniffer (same person who later removed Sniffer >material from the CIT class. Sigh) Lots of arguments about other >protocol-related information. All BS. (will that get through the filters? >;-) > >Your best bet is to research protocol behavior with an analyzer and the >original source documents when they are available. Try to have arguments >only with people who have done the same. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. > > > >Priscilla > >At 03:25 PM 7/8/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote: > >what's more amazing to me is the disproportional importance the > >certification materials place on this kind of stuff. We all read the ad >hoc > >statement in Lammle or other guides that EIGRP is a hybrid protocol with > >characteristics of both DV and LS. Of course nowhere in the materials we > >read are there the kind of detailed explanations, detailed foundations, > >which support these ad hoc statements. > > > >don't even get me started about the L2 vs. L3 switching debate. > > > >Fact is, Cisco promulgates a certain outlook, most of which is accurate > >enough that it makes little difference for all practical purposes. Cisco > >isn't the only one, either. As a result of an argument elsewhere, I had > >reason to delve into the esoterics of OSPF virtual links, and the nature >of > >tunneling. My research and resulting opinion have put me square in > >opposition to statements made in Doyle, Moy, and the RFC itself. I >continue > >to believe that certain comments were made to provide a conceptual > >framework, not to state truth about how things really work. I also >learned > >that Moy himself, while using the term tunnel in his 1998 book, makes no > >such reference in his 2001 book, leading me to believe others may have > >suggested to him that there was misunderstanding due to his earlier > >statement. But that debate continues because after all, there it is in >print > >from an expert. > > > >I believe there are more important things to know than which protocols >are > >link state and which protocols are distance vector. Like what LS and DV > >really are. Thanks to Howard for offering some detail here. For example, >how > >is the routing table created? what happens to get routes into a routing > >table? And what is the basis for redistribution? How does the router ( >not > >routing ) process determine how and what to redistribute? Knowing that >would > >go a long way towards explaining some anomalies I and others have seen. > > > >I suppose it is human nature to believe that because you have passed a >test > >you inherently know all there is to know. I certainly go through similar > >moods myself. I also find that as I learn more I find the early readings >I > >did, and the early explanations, shallow and unsatisfactory. > > > >As to whether or not any vendor certification retains or has lost
RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
I loved working at Network General, makers of the Sniffer. Whenever a question came up about protocol behavior, there were only two legitimate replies: What does the Sniffer show? What does the RFC (or IEEE or whatever) document say? Then I went to Cisco Sigh. Huge arguments about very stupid things like Ethernet frame formats. Couldn't convince the person with whom I argued to even look at it with Sniffer (same person who later removed Sniffer material from the CIT class. Sigh) Lots of arguments about other protocol-related information. All BS. (will that get through the filters? ;-) Your best bet is to research protocol behavior with an analyzer and the original source documents when they are available. Try to have arguments only with people who have done the same. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Priscilla At 03:25 PM 7/8/01, Chuck Larrieu wrote: >what's more amazing to me is the disproportional importance the >certification materials place on this kind of stuff. We all read the ad hoc >statement in Lammle or other guides that EIGRP is a hybrid protocol with >characteristics of both DV and LS. Of course nowhere in the materials we >read are there the kind of detailed explanations, detailed foundations, >which support these ad hoc statements. > >don't even get me started about the L2 vs. L3 switching debate. > >Fact is, Cisco promulgates a certain outlook, most of which is accurate >enough that it makes little difference for all practical purposes. Cisco >isn't the only one, either. As a result of an argument elsewhere, I had >reason to delve into the esoterics of OSPF virtual links, and the nature of >tunneling. My research and resulting opinion have put me square in >opposition to statements made in Doyle, Moy, and the RFC itself. I continue >to believe that certain comments were made to provide a conceptual >framework, not to state truth about how things really work. I also learned >that Moy himself, while using the term tunnel in his 1998 book, makes no >such reference in his 2001 book, leading me to believe others may have >suggested to him that there was misunderstanding due to his earlier >statement. But that debate continues because after all, there it is in print >from an expert. > >I believe there are more important things to know than which protocols are >link state and which protocols are distance vector. Like what LS and DV >really are. Thanks to Howard for offering some detail here. For example, how >is the routing table created? what happens to get routes into a routing >table? And what is the basis for redistribution? How does the router ( not >routing ) process determine how and what to redistribute? Knowing that would >go a long way towards explaining some anomalies I and others have seen. > >I suppose it is human nature to believe that because you have passed a test >you inherently know all there is to know. I certainly go through similar >moods myself. I also find that as I learn more I find the early readings I >did, and the early explanations, shallow and unsatisfactory. > >As to whether or not any vendor certification retains or has lost value, I >leave that for other times and other places. To quote Mr. Science, "I know >more than you do, because I have a Master's degree - in Science!" Cuts to >the heart of the question, doesn't it? > >Chuck > > > >-----Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >Howard C. Berkowitz >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:41 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] > > > >Howard, > > In looking into this I was amazed by the lack of >information > >on these very specific parts of the protocol itself. However, I can't >seem > >to find anything that would seem as a source other than the Cisco > >white-paper and Don Dettmore's EIGRP white-paper on the CZone. I'm also > >using Doyle's Routing TCP/IP and Adv. IP Network Design. > >I agree there is a severe lack of detail. While I don't have the >URLs, unfortunately, there were some fairly detailed presentations a >couple of Networkers ago -- I'd imagine they have been kept updated. > >There are still parts of the protocol, such as the details of the >reliable multicast, that as far as I know, Cisco keeps proprietary. >Frankly, the lack of availability of detailed information is one >reason I avoid EIGRP. > >Garcia-Luna-Alceves' papers get into the algorithm but not the >implementation. > > > > >Could you point out some links that would provide a better reference. This > >way we could all possibly get a better understanding ourselves. > > > >
RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
I believe the question is asking for "Network Discovery" method NOT "Neighbor Discovery" method. CM > -Original Message- > From: abc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 July 2001 09:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] > > > IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to > discover neighbor. > > EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor. > > Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256. > > No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable. > > ""John Feuerherd"" Hello all, > > I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a > question on a > > sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that > EIGRP and IGRP > use > > the same network discovery method. I know they use the same > metrics, but I > > am under the impression that they use different methods > when discovering > > networks. Am I correct in that statement? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > JF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11435&t=11273 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
>what's more amazing to me is the disproportional importance the >certification materials place on this kind of stuff. We all read the ad hoc >statement in Lammle or other guides that EIGRP is a hybrid protocol with >characteristics of both DV and LS. Of course nowhere in the materials we >read are there the kind of detailed explanations, detailed foundations, >which support these ad hoc statements. The only way I can rationalize some of this is that misinformation has crept into Cisco course materials, Cisco exams are based on the courses, and some of the certification review authors are (without violating NDA) trying to put out the Cisco correct answer. I'm often amazed when I get an argument about something in a review book, when my source on the subject might be John Moy on OSPF (more below), or Tony Li or Sue Hares on BGP, etc. Hey--I really do go to IETF meetings, comment on and write RFCs, monitor the lists, and often know the person who writes the code -- or in the case of Nortel, can go look at the code. That's not to say the primary sources always are clear. I'm involved in a team writing Internet-Drafts for single-router BGP convergence terminology and methodology. (before people ask, they will be available, probably a few days after July 13th, as http://www.ietf.org/draft-ietf-bmwg- I'm the lead author, but I have very close collaborators: Alvaro Retana from Cisco's scalability lab, Sue Hares (vice-chair of the BGP working group) and Padma Krishnaswamy from Nexthop (the source of GateD) and Marianne Lepp from Juniper. Others are reviewing the material as well. We are finding that a fair number of terms (e.g., RIB and FIB) aren't rigorously defined in any document. We are also filling in the detail on EXACTLY how certain BGP exchanges take place -- not so much what the individual events are, but how streams of updates get constructed. Things aren't as black-and-white as we might wish. People that write RFCs and implement code often have to stop and think, and that level of knowledge isn't necessarily available to a review book writer. > > >Fact is, Cisco promulgates a certain outlook, most of which is accurate >enough that it makes little difference for all practical purposes. Cisco >isn't the only one, either. As a result of an argument elsewhere, I had >reason to delve into the esoterics of OSPF virtual links, and the nature of >tunneling. My research and resulting opinion have put me square in >opposition to statements made in Doyle, Moy, and the RFC itself. Several suggestions here. One, if Cisco is behaving differently from the RFC, I think the developers would like to know. Unless you know the individual people and have name recognition with them, the best thing is to write up the concern and send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an intelligent mail exploder that will route the message to relevant developers, testers, etc. It is NOT a support channel and may or may not get a response. On the other hand, when I had a specific RFC interpretation question in OSPF, I happened to know the lead developer at the time, and I got very quick responses and explanations on how and why Cisco didn't implement the letter of the RFC. If you feel the RFC itself has an error, send in your observation to the OSPF working group. As long as people aren't asking vendor-specific support questions, it's a pretty friendly mailing list. >I continue >to believe that certain comments were made to provide a conceptual >framework, not to state truth about how things really work. I also learned >that Moy himself, while using the term tunnel in his 1998 book, makes no >such reference in his 2001 book, leading me to believe others may have >suggested to him that there was misunderstanding due to his earlier >statement. But that debate continues because after all, there it is in print >from an expert. I've talked to Moy about the history of VLs. He invented the idea to solve the problem of an area with no physical connection to area 0.0.0.0. The technique of healing a backbone partition by using a VL with both ends in area 0.0.0.0 came later. The early documentation and implementation of VLs were buggy, so people tended to avoid them. As a consequence, the VL code was exercised less frequently, and simply wasn't understood as well. When we were doing the 11.2 revision of ACRC, I argued quite forcefully that VLs should not be added to the OSPF chapter. In CID, we were advising people not to use them; that there are usually better ways. The TAC insisted that VLs be included in ACRC, on the basis that they got lots of support calls about them. Of course, by putting them into ACRC, more people tried to use them. For the TAC, this may have been a case of "be careful what you wish for--you might get it." > >I believe there are more important things to know than which protocols are >link state and which protocols are distance vector. In my day job, I actually
RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
what's more amazing to me is the disproportional importance the certification materials place on this kind of stuff. We all read the ad hoc statement in Lammle or other guides that EIGRP is a hybrid protocol with characteristics of both DV and LS. Of course nowhere in the materials we read are there the kind of detailed explanations, detailed foundations, which support these ad hoc statements. don't even get me started about the L2 vs. L3 switching debate. Fact is, Cisco promulgates a certain outlook, most of which is accurate enough that it makes little difference for all practical purposes. Cisco isn't the only one, either. As a result of an argument elsewhere, I had reason to delve into the esoterics of OSPF virtual links, and the nature of tunneling. My research and resulting opinion have put me square in opposition to statements made in Doyle, Moy, and the RFC itself. I continue to believe that certain comments were made to provide a conceptual framework, not to state truth about how things really work. I also learned that Moy himself, while using the term tunnel in his 1998 book, makes no such reference in his 2001 book, leading me to believe others may have suggested to him that there was misunderstanding due to his earlier statement. But that debate continues because after all, there it is in print from an expert. I believe there are more important things to know than which protocols are link state and which protocols are distance vector. Like what LS and DV really are. Thanks to Howard for offering some detail here. For example, how is the routing table created? what happens to get routes into a routing table? And what is the basis for redistribution? How does the router ( not routing ) process determine how and what to redistribute? Knowing that would go a long way towards explaining some anomalies I and others have seen. I suppose it is human nature to believe that because you have passed a test you inherently know all there is to know. I certainly go through similar moods myself. I also find that as I learn more I find the early readings I did, and the early explanations, shallow and unsatisfactory. As to whether or not any vendor certification retains or has lost value, I leave that for other times and other places. To quote Mr. Science, "I know more than you do, because I have a Master's degree - in Science!" Cuts to the heart of the question, doesn't it? Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] >Howard, > In looking into this I was amazed by the lack of information >on these very specific parts of the protocol itself. However, I can't seem >to find anything that would seem as a source other than the Cisco >white-paper and Don Dettmore's EIGRP white-paper on the CZone. I'm also >using Doyle's Routing TCP/IP and Adv. IP Network Design. I agree there is a severe lack of detail. While I don't have the URLs, unfortunately, there were some fairly detailed presentations a couple of Networkers ago -- I'd imagine they have been kept updated. There are still parts of the protocol, such as the details of the reliable multicast, that as far as I know, Cisco keeps proprietary. Frankly, the lack of availability of detailed information is one reason I avoid EIGRP. Garcia-Luna-Alceves' papers get into the algorithm but not the implementation. > >Could you point out some links that would provide a better reference. This >way we could all possibly get a better understanding ourselves. > >TIA > >Nigel.. > >----- Original Message - >From: Howard C. Berkowitz >To: >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:13 AM >Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] > > >> >abc wrote, >> >> >> >> >IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover >neighbor. >> > >> >EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor >> >> No, EIGRP does not use a link state mechanism for neighbor discovery. >> It does, however, use a hello subprotocol, and the link state >> protocols (ISIS and OSPF) use different hello subprotocols. >> >> Neighbor discovery in RIP and IGRP are fairly tightly coupled to >> distance vector, because one of the first notifications of a >> neighbor's existence is that it sends a routing update. (Actually, in >> RIP at least -- I'd have to research IGRP -- you first hear a routing >> table query from a neighbor, which sends its table only after you >> respond). In EIGRP, ISIS, and OSPF, neighbor discovery is completely >> decoupled from the topology update mechanism. &g
RE: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
I'm curious about a couple of your statements. Do you have any links on CCO that clarify this? Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of abc Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 1:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover neighbor. EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor. Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256. No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable. ""John Feuerherd"" Hello all, > I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a question on a > sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that EIGRP and IGRP use > the same network discovery method. I know they use the same metrics, but I > am under the impression that they use different methods when discovering > networks. Am I correct in that statement? > > Thanks in advance, > JF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11355&t=11273 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
>Howard, > In looking into this I was amazed by the lack of information >on these very specific parts of the protocol itself. However, I can't seem >to find anything that would seem as a source other than the Cisco >white-paper and Don Dettmore's EIGRP white-paper on the CZone. I'm also >using Doyle's Routing TCP/IP and Adv. IP Network Design. I agree there is a severe lack of detail. While I don't have the URLs, unfortunately, there were some fairly detailed presentations a couple of Networkers ago -- I'd imagine they have been kept updated. There are still parts of the protocol, such as the details of the reliable multicast, that as far as I know, Cisco keeps proprietary. Frankly, the lack of availability of detailed information is one reason I avoid EIGRP. Garcia-Luna-Alceves' papers get into the algorithm but not the implementation. > >Could you point out some links that would provide a better reference. This >way we could all possibly get a better understanding ourselves. > >TIA > >Nigel.. > >- Original Message - >From: Howard C. Berkowitz >To: >Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:13 AM >Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] > > >> >abc wrote, >> >> >> >> >IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover >neighbor. >> > >> >EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor >> >> No, EIGRP does not use a link state mechanism for neighbor discovery. >> It does, however, use a hello subprotocol, and the link state >> protocols (ISIS and OSPF) use different hello subprotocols. >> >> Neighbor discovery in RIP and IGRP are fairly tightly coupled to >> distance vector, because one of the first notifications of a >> neighbor's existence is that it sends a routing update. (Actually, in >> RIP at least -- I'd have to research IGRP -- you first hear a routing >> table query from a neighbor, which sends its table only after you >> respond). In EIGRP, ISIS, and OSPF, neighbor discovery is completely >> decoupled from the topology update mechanism. >> >> >. >> > >> >Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256. >> > >> >No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable. >> >> I question your observations, because you have not really >> demonstrated you understand how the protocols work. Now, please >> understand I am not trying to be overly critical. Many courses and >> books teach it incorrectly, with marketing confusion about "hybrid" >> protocols, and especially the erroneous association of hello >> subprotocols with link state. To achieve real understanding, one has >> to dig beyond the confusion and often go back to source material. >> >> > >> >""John Feuerherd"" Hello all, >> >> I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a question on >a >> >> sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that EIGRP and >IGRP >> >use >> >> the same network discovery method. I know they use the same metrics, >but >> I >> >> am under the impression that they use different methods when >discovering >> >> networks. Am I correct in that statement? >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> JF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11333&t=11273 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
Howard, In looking into this I was amazed by the lack of information on these very specific parts of the protocol itself. However, I can't seem to find anything that would seem as a source other than the Cisco white-paper and Don Dettmore's EIGRP white-paper on the CZone. I'm also using Doyle's Routing TCP/IP and Adv. IP Network Design. Could you point out some links that would provide a better reference. This way we could all possibly get a better understanding ourselves. TIA Nigel.. - Original Message - From: Howard C. Berkowitz To: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:13 AM Subject: Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273] > >abc wrote, > > > > >IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover neighbor. > > > >EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor > > No, EIGRP does not use a link state mechanism for neighbor discovery. > It does, however, use a hello subprotocol, and the link state > protocols (ISIS and OSPF) use different hello subprotocols. > > Neighbor discovery in RIP and IGRP are fairly tightly coupled to > distance vector, because one of the first notifications of a > neighbor's existence is that it sends a routing update. (Actually, in > RIP at least -- I'd have to research IGRP -- you first hear a routing > table query from a neighbor, which sends its table only after you > respond). In EIGRP, ISIS, and OSPF, neighbor discovery is completely > decoupled from the topology update mechanism. > > >. > > > >Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256. > > > >No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable. > > I question your observations, because you have not really > demonstrated you understand how the protocols work. Now, please > understand I am not trying to be overly critical. Many courses and > books teach it incorrectly, with marketing confusion about "hybrid" > protocols, and especially the erroneous association of hello > subprotocols with link state. To achieve real understanding, one has > to dig beyond the confusion and often go back to source material. > > > > >""John Feuerherd"" Hello all, > >> I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a question on a > >> sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that EIGRP and IGRP > >use > >> the same network discovery method. I know they use the same metrics, but > I > >> am under the impression that they use different methods when discovering > >> networks. Am I correct in that statement? > >> > >> Thanks in advance, > >> JF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11329&t=11273 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
>abc wrote, >IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover neighbor. > >EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor No, EIGRP does not use a link state mechanism for neighbor discovery. It does, however, use a hello subprotocol, and the link state protocols (ISIS and OSPF) use different hello subprotocols. Neighbor discovery in RIP and IGRP are fairly tightly coupled to distance vector, because one of the first notifications of a neighbor's existence is that it sends a routing update. (Actually, in RIP at least -- I'd have to research IGRP -- you first hear a routing table query from a neighbor, which sends its table only after you respond). In EIGRP, ISIS, and OSPF, neighbor discovery is completely decoupled from the topology update mechanism. >. > >Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256. > >No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable. I question your observations, because you have not really demonstrated you understand how the protocols work. Now, please understand I am not trying to be overly critical. Many courses and books teach it incorrectly, with marketing confusion about "hybrid" protocols, and especially the erroneous association of hello subprotocols with link state. To achieve real understanding, one has to dig beyond the confusion and often go back to source material. > >""John Feuerherd"" Hello all, >> I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a question on a >> sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that EIGRP and IGRP >use >> the same network discovery method. I know they use the same metrics, but I >> am under the impression that they use different methods when discovering >> networks. Am I correct in that statement? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> JF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11319&t=11273 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and IGRP network discovery [7:11273]
IGRP use distance vector routing protocol alogorithm to discover neighbor. EIGRP use link state routing protocol algorithm to discover neighbor. Metric calaucation is basically same, but eigrp multiply 256. No wonder, cisco certification is no longer valueable. ""John Feuerherd"" Hello all, > I'm studying for my CCIE written exam and I came across a question on a > sample test that has me a little baffled. It states that EIGRP and IGRP use > the same network discovery method. I know they use the same metrics, but I > am under the impression that they use different methods when discovering > networks. Am I correct in that statement? > > Thanks in advance, > JF Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11309&t=11273 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
