Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
actually rip is faster than IGRP [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: been very easy to configured and very fast converged comparing to RIP/RIPv2. Anything is fast compared to RIP/RIPv2 ;-) It seems OSPF gets lots of favor as a stardard protocol. I am curious if OSPF support load sharing on equal / unequal paths? Only equal cost paths are taken into consideration when using OSPF. The default is four of them. You can change it with maximum-paths under router ospf. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62646t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: I have been using EIGRP for our routing protocol for the last couple years, which is prettly great. The controversal of selecting the routing protocol came up again recently. I would like to have your opinion on EIGRP vs. OSPF, which one is refered? What's the weakness and advantage? Thanks! - OSPF is pretty much supported by all vendors nowadays. - OSPF calculates a tree from the point of origin using Dijkstra's algorithm (SPF) - OSPF is a link-state protocol, you get really fast convergence by tuning the timers - All area 0 (ie. backbone) routers have a complete overview of the network - Easy to deploy - By default link-cost is calculated from the bandwidth of the link - Only for IP - Filtering on ABR/ASBR only, between areas preferably - EIGRP, although the spec is available, only you usually find it on only brand Ci$co routers. - EIGRP calculates it's view of the world using DUAL (Diffusing update algorithm) - Router stores its neighbors routing tables and queries its neighbors if no specific route is found - It's pretty much a distance-vector protocol with some features borrowed from link-state ones. - Pretty easy to deploy - Is bugwards compatible with IGRP - Works with IP and IPX - Easy to filter and aggregate, on any interface (ie you can do areas quite easily) - Takes into account path reliability, loading, MTU, lowest bandwidth between destinations, total delay when calculating the best way of getting to the destination. - Enterprise people tend to prefer EIGRP over others because it's easy to do ISDN backup with it Most people would nowadays choose OSPF because their CIOs might want to keep a second vendor option on the table. Service providers would probably choose IS-IS (my favorite) or OSPF. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62430t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
EIGRP easy to configure optimised for Cisco kit. Use OSPF if mixed vendor environment and if network is large scale. Requires good configurqtion knowledge as much less plug and play than EIGRP. Also OSPF is true link state so faster convergence and better scalability. EIGRP is enhanced distance vector. Both carry subnet data and allow complex subnetting, route summarisation but OSPF harder to configure. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62433t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
OSPF no hop limit link state have 2 know how to configure it bandwith is the metric supportes areas therefore scalls well supports area and net summarization supportes cidr, vlsm fast to converge supports demand cicuits standard based djikstra is the algo used in large environments EIGRP advanced distance vector ( the way messages are sent, have only some similarity to link state protos) default hop limit 100 can be up to 255 supports IPX and Appletalk by default is faster to converge than OSPF, RIP1and2 and IGRP supports unequall path load balancing redistribute routes from IGRP with the same AS#. redistribute routes from RTMP redistribute routes from RIP IPX dual is the algo used mostely in cisco environments supports CIDR VLSM uses a reliable transport mechaanism very easy to configure but u have to know the default behavior Peter P a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EIGRP easy to configure optimised for Cisco kit. Use OSPF if mixed vendor environment and if network is large scale. Requires good configurqtion knowledge as much less plug and play than EIGRP. Also OSPF is true link state so faster convergence and better scalability. EIGRP is enhanced distance vector. Both carry subnet data and allow complex subnetting, route summarisation but OSPF harder to configure. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62435t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
Good answers. Here are a few additional comments. OSPF is an IETF standard, which has the following advantages: You have access to the RFCs that describe it, which can help when troubleshooting and designing network changes, even though the RFCs aren't very readable. Engineers from around the world can enhance OSPF, using standard IETF procedures and taking advantage of IETF work on advanced routing protocol features. EIGRP is not an IETF standard. You said below that the spec if available, but that's not true. Cisco has lots of documentaton on EIGRP but they have not released a specification for it. The fact that EIGRP is not a standard means that it probably won't be able to take advantage of new IETF work, or at least not as easily, and not with so much input from engineers around the world. By the way, EIGRP converges very quickly too. And it doesn't use load and reliability in its metric by default. Also it passes MTU info around, but MTU isn't part of the metric. In fact, figuring out exactly how a router running EIGRP uses MTU is one of those things that you can't find a specification on. Good discussion! Priscilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) wrote: In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: I have been using EIGRP for our routing protocol for the last couple years, which is prettly great. The controversal of selecting the routing protocol came up again recently. I would like to have your opinion on EIGRP vs. OSPF, which one is refered? What's the weakness and advantage? Thanks! - OSPF is pretty much supported by all vendors nowadays. - OSPF calculates a tree from the point of origin using Dijkstra's algorithm (SPF) - OSPF is a link-state protocol, you get really fast convergence by tuning the timers - All area 0 (ie. backbone) routers have a complete overview of the network - Easy to deploy - By default link-cost is calculated from the bandwidth of the link - Only for IP - Filtering on ABR/ASBR only, between areas preferably - EIGRP, although the spec is available, only you usually find it on only brand Ci$co routers. - EIGRP calculates it's view of the world using DUAL (Diffusing update algorithm) - Router stores its neighbors routing tables and queries its neighbors if no specific route is found - It's pretty much a distance-vector protocol with some features borrowed from link-state ones. - Pretty easy to deploy - Is bugwards compatible with IGRP - Works with IP and IPX - Easy to filter and aggregate, on any interface (ie you can do areas quite easily) - Takes into account path reliability, loading, MTU, lowest bandwidth between destinations, total delay when calculating the best way of getting to the destination. - Enterprise people tend to prefer EIGRP over others because it's easy to do ISDN backup with it Most people would nowadays choose OSPF because their CIOs might want to keep a second vendor option on the table. Service providers would probably choose IS-IS (my favorite) or OSPF. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62450t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: EIGRP is not an IETF standard. You said below that the spec if available, but that's not true. Cisco has lots of documentaton on EIGRP but they have not released a specification for it. AFAIK there used to be another company who manufactured routers with an EIGRP functionality (!) years ago. A detailed spec isn't available but the packet format is available as are descriptions of the TLVs and the FSM. The fact that EIGRP is not a standard means that it probably won't be able to take advantage of new IETF work, or at least not as easily, and not with so much input from engineers around the world. Yup. It's always been Cisco's very own special little friend. ;-) By the way, EIGRP converges very quickly too. And it doesn't use load and reliability in its metric by default. Also it passes MTU info around, but MTU isn't part of the metric. In fact, figuring out exactly how a router running EIGRP uses MTU is one of those things that you can't find a specification on. Uh, true. Minimum path MTU obtained from the link is not used for calculation of the link metric. Some people (that I've seen) set K5 as MTU. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62456t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
Interesting! I learned OSPF on BSCN book but never deploy it. EIGRP has been very easy to configured and very fast converged comparing to RIP/RIPv2. It seems OSPF gets lots of favor as a stardard protocol. I am curious if OSPF support load sharing on equal / unequal paths? Thanks All for the input! Thomas Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Good answers. Here are a few additional comments. OSPF is an IETF standard, which has the following advantages: You have access to the RFCs that describe it, which can help when troubleshooting and designing network changes, even though the RFCs aren't very readable. Engineers from around the world can enhance OSPF, using standard IETF procedures and taking advantage of IETF work on advanced routing protocol features. EIGRP is not an IETF standard. You said below that the spec if available, but that's not true. Cisco has lots of documentaton on EIGRP but they have not released a specification for it. The fact that EIGRP is not a standard means that it probably won't be able to take advantage of new IETF work, or at least not as easily, and not with so much input from engineers around the world. By the way, EIGRP converges very quickly too. And it doesn't use load and reliability in its metric by default. Also it passes MTU info around, but MTU isn't part of the metric. In fact, figuring out exactly how a router running EIGRP uses MTU is one of those things that you can't find a specification on. Good discussion! Priscilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaj J. Niemi) wrote: In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: I have been using EIGRP for our routing protocol for the last couple years, which is prettly great. The controversal of selecting the routing protocol came up again recently. I would like to have your opinion on EIGRP vs. OSPF, which one is refered? What's the weakness and advantage? Thanks! - OSPF is pretty much supported by all vendors nowadays. - OSPF calculates a tree from the point of origin using Dijkstra's algorithm (SPF) - OSPF is a link-state protocol, you get really fast convergence by tuning the timers - All area 0 (ie. backbone) routers have a complete overview of the network - Easy to deploy - By default link-cost is calculated from the bandwidth of the link - Only for IP - Filtering on ABR/ASBR only, between areas preferably - EIGRP, although the spec is available, only you usually find it on only brand Ci$co routers. - EIGRP calculates it's view of the world using DUAL (Diffusing update algorithm) - Router stores its neighbors routing tables and queries its neighbors if no specific route is found - It's pretty much a distance-vector protocol with some features borrowed from link-state ones. - Pretty easy to deploy - Is bugwards compatible with IGRP - Works with IP and IPX - Easy to filter and aggregate, on any interface (ie you can do areas quite easily) - Takes into account path reliability, loading, MTU, lowest bandwidth between destinations, total delay when calculating the best way of getting to the destination. - Enterprise people tend to prefer EIGRP over others because it's easy to do ISDN backup with it Most people would nowadays choose OSPF because their CIOs might want to keep a second vendor option on the table. Service providers would probably choose IS-IS (my favorite) or OSPF. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62459t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP vs. OSPF [7:62419]
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote: been very easy to configured and very fast converged comparing to RIP/RIPv2. Anything is fast compared to RIP/RIPv2 ;-) It seems OSPF gets lots of favor as a stardard protocol. I am curious if OSPF support load sharing on equal / unequal paths? Only equal cost paths are taken into consideration when using OSPF. The default is four of them. You can change it with maximum-paths under router ospf. // kaj Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=62473t=62419 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and OSPF
I've only heard this phrase used in conjunction with routing protocols - you can run OSPF and BGP on the same router, but they won't have anything to do with one another (like ships in the night) unless you configure redistribution explicitly. Although I suppose it could also be applied to routed protocols as well...I've just never heard it used for them before. :-) BJ - Original Message - From: Fred Danson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:50 PM Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Wait a sec, I thought ships in the night meant that 2 ROUTED protocols are running concurrently without knowledge of eachother. Running 2 routing protocols has nothing to do with ships in the night, right? Fred From: "Raul F. Fernandez" Reply-To: "Raul F. Fernandez" To: "Thomas" , Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:42:55 -0400 Yes you can .they are ships in the night. The never see each other. Raul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and OSPF
but ospf and bgp are two different routing protocols in context; an IGP and an EGP. if two different IGPs are running on the same router, then the "ships passing in the night" refers to the different IGPs (for example, EIGRP and OSPF) routing and advertising different networks, which is completely permissable, and applicable in certain environments (example: post-merger networking, where shared information is not necessarily required, but shared network support is required-instead of redistributing back and forth, the network staff has both connections in the NOC to monitor both). Also, during a network cut-over, not allowing the old and new addressing schemes to intermingle requires different routing processes - multiple Autonomous Systems, or independent routing protocols work in that case. btw, the 'ships-in-the-night' citation comes from OSI routing (IS-IS) as the method for configuring two different routable *network* protocols independently (for example, AppleTalk and IP) - Original Message - From: "Bradley J. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "cisco" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: EIGRP and OSPF I've only heard this phrase used in conjunction with routing protocols - you can run OSPF and BGP on the same router, but they won't have anything to do with one another (like ships in the night) unless you configure redistribution explicitly. Although I suppose it could also be applied to routed protocols as well...I've just never heard it used for them before. :-) BJ - Original Message - From: Fred Danson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:50 PM Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Wait a sec, I thought ships in the night meant that 2 ROUTED protocols are running concurrently without knowledge of eachother. Running 2 routing protocols has nothing to do with ships in the night, right? Fred From: "Raul F. Fernandez" Reply-To: "Raul F. Fernandez" To: "Thomas" , Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:42:55 -0400 Yes you can .they are ships in the night. The never see each other. Raul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and OSPF
I seem to recall that in some of the (old) CCNA stuff it used the term to refer to separate routed protocols. Doyle says that "although SIN routing usually refers to multiple routing protocols routing multiple routed protocols on the same router (such as OSPF routing IP and NLSP routing IPX), it can also refer to two IP protocols routing for separate IP domains on a single router." (or, presumably, two IPX protocols routing for separate IPX domains...) As far as I can see, you can apply the term equally well to routed or routing protocols. JMcL -- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 05/04/2001 08:55 am --- "Bradley J. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]@groupstudy.com on 04/04/2001 07:25:37 pm Please respond to "Bradley J. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "cisco" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: EIGRP and OSPF I've only heard this phrase used in conjunction with routing protocols - you can run OSPF and BGP on the same router, but they won't have anything to do with one another (like ships in the night) unless you configure redistribution explicitly. Although I suppose it could also be applied to routed protocols as well...I've just never heard it used for them before. :-) BJ - Original Message - From: Fred Danson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:50 PM Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Wait a sec, I thought ships in the night meant that 2 ROUTED protocols are running concurrently without knowledge of eachother. Running 2 routing protocols has nothing to do with ships in the night, right? Fred From: "Raul F. Fernandez" Reply-To: "Raul F. Fernandez" To: "Thomas" , Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:42:55 -0400 Yes you can .they are ships in the night. The never see each other. Raul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP and OSPF
Yes you can .they are ships in the night. The never see each other. Raul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and OSPF
Yes, you can have both on the same router. But if you just want to migrate away from RIP, why would you choose to use both of them? It would be better to pick one and be done with it. If you're an all-Cisco shop, you could go with EIGRP unless you foresee adding non-cisco routers in the future. If you have a mix of routers, or if you just feel like it, use OSPF. Heck, use OSPF anyway. EIGRP makes you lazy. g Besides, you have to learn OSPF eventually, you might as well get some hands-on experience! :-) HTH, John Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! ___ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP and OSPF
Wait a sec, I thought ships in the night meant that 2 ROUTED protocols are running concurrently without knowledge of eachother. Running 2 routing protocols has nothing to do with ships in the night, right? Fred From: "Raul F. Fernandez" Reply-To: "Raul F. Fernandez" To: "Thomas" , Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:42:55 -0400 Yes you can .they are ships in the night. The never see each other. Raul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP and OSPF
SIN typically refers to EIGRP's support for AT, IPX and IP routing with isolation between them on the wire - a different table and hello/update process runs for each. OSPF and EIGRP can run on routers concurrently, however, administrative distance will effectively kill duplicate routes. Summarization and other techniques to control routes can allow both to effectively run on the same wire/domain, but then we get to 'why?' I hope this is a lab question or an overlay centric IGP migration... ;) --- Fred Danson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait a sec, I thought ships in the night meant that 2 ROUTED protocols are running concurrently without knowledge of eachother. Running 2 routing protocols has nothing to do with ships in the night, right? Fred From: "Raul F. Fernandez" Reply-To: "Raul F. Fernandez" To: "Thomas" , Subject: RE: EIGRP and OSPF Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:42:55 -0400 Yes you can .they are ships in the night. The never see each other. Raul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Thomas Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Hi All - Is it possible to have both EIGRP and OSPF installed on a single router? Just trying to get rid of the RIP here. Thanks All! Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Robert Padjen __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP
Chuck, OH YES!! It's going to be a good day! LOL Your analysis of the serial/ethernet is right on: this is exactly what I had in mind. This is actually an idea a friend of mine came up with to link EIGRP over disparate and wildly varying routing protocols: he came up with 3 ideas, I came up with 3 ideas, and then we both got way interested in this tunnel idea because it was so interesting. We have been kicking it around for about a day, but are still in the thinking stage. At this point, I believe that our tunnel end points would most likely be the ethernets; however, we have not set that in concrete yet.One of the goals is to keep it as automated as possible, and to use static routes as little as possible. Having said that, in response to your question, I don't believe we can have either OSPF or BGP to advertise the tunnel network at all as it may cause confusion.We can have OSPF and BGP advertise the tunnel end point interfaces; and leave the tunnel network in EIGRP.EIGRP routes will get redistributed into BGP and OSPF; there may be some ramifications to that we have not thought out. Many thanks to all who wrote; I'll share our conclusions (whether technical or not;) if anyone is interested. Charles ""Chuck Larrieu"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 005e01c04df1$87901e00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:005e01c04df1$87901e00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... You know, Charles, I've been pondering this setup for a while now. ( See - you did too get me after all! :- ) Now I already posted the wisecrack about the mess in the middle, and whether or not you would even be able to get IP connectivity end to end here. RouterA: ethernet EIGRP, serial=OSPF RouterB: serial1= OSPF, serial2=BGP RouterC: serial 1=BGP, serial2=OSPF RouterD: serial1=OSPF, ethernet=EIGRP As an intellectual exercise, I'm sure many of us can put together some configurations that work. The redistribution should not be al that bad, albeit a bit unusual. I'm wondering, though, about that BGP piece in the middle. Gonna use static routes from B to C? Also - is my concept of the layout correct? Are your tunnel end points going to be the two ethernet interfaces? I'm just wondering about the mechanics here. Damn you, Charles, now you done it! You are indeed an evil one :- Chuck Cthulu's question corner: Given: EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1 I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share a common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture then becomes: EIGRP1 RTRA ---tunnel--- RTRD EIGRP1 The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will be in a different subnet).I don't have my rack online to test this out, so would appreciate any comments. Thoughts, anyone? Flames to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP
I've actually done something like this in a lab. I wrote about it on the list a few months back. I am e-mailing you the configs in a separate message. ( too big for Paul to let through to the list ) but a relevant excerpt follows: Router A interface Tunnel0 ip address 172.17.1.1 255.255.0.0 tunnel source Serial0 tunnel destination 192.168.101.1 Router B interface Tunnel0 ip address 172.17.2.2 255.255.0.0 tunnel source Serial1 tunnel destination 192.168.102.1 the tunnel destinations on either router are the outside ( internet, if you will ) IP addresses of the serial interfaces. These are on entirely different networks, as would likely be the case in a real world situation or why would you need the tunnel the first place? Duh! ) The tunnel itself does have to be on the same subnet, as you can see from both router tunnel interface addresses. You will see when you get the configs. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Cthulu, CCIE Candidate Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:EIGRP over OSPF and BGP Hi, all! By the way, thanks to all who wrote me about where to find a cabinet... got some good leads out of it! Y'all know how I love to post messages addressing weird situation and problems? Usually, it intrigues Chuck L., causing hiim to suspend his studies while he investigates what the heck I wrote about;) Anyways, I got another one: Given: EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1 I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share a common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture then becomes: EIGRP1 RTRA ---tunnel--- RTRD EIGRP1 The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will be in a different subnet).I don't have my rack online to test this out, so would appreciate any comments. Thoughts, anyone? Flames to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP
Of course, Charles, I'll lay odds you won't get end to end ip connectivity anyway, given that mess you have created in the middle! :- Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Cthulu, CCIE Candidate Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:EIGRP over OSPF and BGP Hi, all! By the way, thanks to all who wrote me about where to find a cabinet... got some good leads out of it! Y'all know how I love to post messages addressing weird situation and problems? Usually, it intrigues Chuck L., causing hiim to suspend his studies while he investigates what the heck I wrote about;) Anyways, I got another one: Given: EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1 I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share a common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture then becomes: EIGRP1 RTRA ---tunnel--- RTRD EIGRP1 The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will be in a different subnet).I don't have my rack online to test this out, so would appreciate any comments. Thoughts, anyone? Flames to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP
Chuck, Bless you for the configs, though I am put out that this one did not give you pause...damn, I must be slipping;]I think I could attain connectivity with this...reliability, stability, usuability, routability, now that is another matter! Many thanks again, I will be looking over the configs you sent me; Charles ""Chuck Larrieu"" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message 005101c04ddf$405482e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:005101c04ddf$405482e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Of course, Charles, I'll lay odds you won't get end to end ip connectivity anyway, given that mess you have created in the middle! :- Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Cthulu, CCIE Candidate Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP Hi, all! By the way, thanks to all who wrote me about where to find a cabinet... got some good leads out of it! Y'all know how I love to post messages addressing weird situation and problems? Usually, it intrigues Chuck L., causing hiim to suspend his studies while he investigates what the heck I wrote about;) Anyways, I got another one: Given: EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1 I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share a common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture then becomes: EIGRP1 RTRA ---tunnel--- RTRD EIGRP1 The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will be in a different subnet).I don't have my rack online to test this out, so would appreciate any comments. Thoughts, anyone? Flames to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Cthulu, CCIE Candidate wrote: Anyways, I got another one: Given: EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1 I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share a common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture then becomes: EIGRP1 RTRA ---tunnel--- RTRD EIGRP1 The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will be in a different subnet).I don't have my rack online to test this out, so would appreciate any comments. Thoughts, anyone? The tunnel will have it's own network. This is the network that eigrp will be configured to operate on. Of course, RTRA and RTRD will need to know how to get to x.x.x.x and y.y.y.y, respectively. RTRA: int tunnel0 ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.252 tunnel mode gre ip tunnel source-interface loopback0 tunnel destination x.x.x.x router eigrp 1 network 192.168.0.0 RTRD: int tunnel0 ip address 192.168.0.2 255.255.255.252 tunnel mode gre ip tunnel source-interface loopback0 tunnel destination y.y.y.y router eigrp 1 network 192.168.0.0 Regards, --phil _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP over OSPF and BGP
You know, Charles, I've been pondering this setup for a while now. ( See - you did too get me after all! :- ) Now I already posted the wisecrack about the mess in the middle, and whether or not you would even be able to get IP connectivity end to end here. RouterA: ethernet EIGRP, serial=OSPF RouterB: serial1= OSPF, serial2=BGP RouterC: serial 1=BGP, serial2=OSPF RouterD: serial1=OSPF, ethernet=EIGRP As an intellectual exercise, I'm sure many of us can put together some configurations that work. The redistribution should not be al that bad, albeit a bit unusual. I'm wondering, though, about that BGP piece in the middle. Gonna use static routes from B to C? Also - is my concept of the layout correct? Are your tunnel end points going to be the two ethernet interfaces? I'm just wondering about the mechanics here. Damn you, Charles, now you done it! You are indeed an evil one :- Chuck Cthulu's question corner: Given: EIGRP 1 RTRA OSPF RTB BGP RTR C OSPF RTRD EIGRP1 I want RTRD and RTRA to become EIGRP peers and do the exchange routing update thing. Granted, they are not directly connected, and do not share a common subnet. If I set up a GRE tunnel between D and A, the picture then becomes: EIGRP1 RTRA ---tunnel--- RTRD EIGRP1 The tunnel becomes the common network, and therefore, EIGRP should be able to work. Only thing I am not sure about is the source interfaces for this tunnel will be different at each end (that is, each source interface will be in a different subnet).I don't have my rack online to test this out, so would appreciate any comments. Thoughts, anyone? Flames to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charles _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EIGRP and OSPF
Turn on no auto summary on the eigrp router - Original Message - From: Radford Dion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 6:51 AM Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Has anyone out there ever integrated OSPF and EIGRP? We have a requirement where we want to take a part of our network out of the OSPF area and make it into an EIGRP network. (Good reasons for this, I can assure you) Network A - OSPF Network B - EIGRP 172.28.0.0 172.19.0.0 172.19.49-56.0 172.19.50.1 X--X ---X Router ASerial Line Router B Router C What I have tried Router A: Static routes for subnetwork B pointing to Router B, redistributing the static routes into OSPF and making the serial interface passive. Router B: Static route 0.0.0.0 pointing to Router A, redistribute static routes in EIGRP and making serial interface passive. Router A router ospf 100 redistribute static subents network 172.19.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 11 passive-interface serial 1 exit !static routes into network B ip route 172.19.48.0 255.255.240.0 172.19.159.253 Router B router eigrp 51 redistribute static network 172.19.0.0 passive-interface serial 0 ! !default route into network A ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.19.159.252 Router C router eigrp 51 network 172.19.0.0 ! It didn' work. Router C had the correct gateway of last resort, yet you couldn't get to it from Network A (except from Router A). However, I could access devices on the 172.28.0.0 network from router C (172.28.0.0 is in another OSPF area). I think it could be due to the fact that we are using the same major network number for both OSPF and EIGRP? If anyone has any ideas let me know. Thanks, Dion ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP and OSPF
Here is a better diagram: Net A - OSPFNet B EIGRP 172.28.0.0 172.19.0.0 172.19.49-58.0 172.19.50.1 X-XX RouterARouter B Router C I don't understand the need for the 'no auto-summary' command. I have full connectivity within the EIGRP network and I am not redistributing eigrp into ospf. I use the static route on Router A to avoid the redistribution. (Although the next thing I will probably try is redistributing EIGRP into OSPF, cos I am out of ideas). Also, is the metric really necessary for ospf. The default metric for an E2 route is 20, and there is only one route to NetB, so the lower the metric the bettter? The point of these changes is to prevent Network B from knowing anything about network A, only how to get to it. I should also mention that I have constructed the network in a lab and everything works great, but I can't simulate the 1000 network ospf database, possible routing loops and convergence time. Thanks for the help so far, Dion -Original Message- From: John Swartz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday 20 July 2000 13:09 To: Radford Dion Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EIGRP and OSPF 1. You need to assign a default-metric or specify the metric at the end of your redistribute commands 2. Under EIGRP try the command 'no auto-summary' example: Router A router ospf 100 redistribute static subents metric 100 network 172.19.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 11 passive-interface serial 1 Router B router eigrp 51 no auto-summary redistribute static metric 1 1000 255 1 1500 network 172.19.0.0 passive-interface serial 0 John Swartz ccie, ccnp, ccdp, mcse+i, mcsd, cne Boson Software and Training KRANG Router Simulator at http://www.routeru.com - Original Message - From: "Radford Dion" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 6:51 AM Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Has anyone out there ever integrated OSPF and EIGRP? We have a requirement where we want to take a part of our network out of the OSPF area and make it into an EIGRP network. (Good reasons for this, I can assure you) Network A - OSPF Network B - EIGRP 172.28.0.0 172.19.0.0 172.19.49-56.0 172.19.50.1 X--X-- -- ---X Router ASerial Line Router B Router C What I have tried Router A: Static routes for subnetwork B pointing to Router B, redistributing the static routes into OSPF and making the serial interface passive. Router B: Static route 0.0.0.0 pointing to Router A, redistribute static routes in EIGRP and making serial interface passive. Router A router ospf 100 redistribute static subents network 172.19.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 11 passive-interface serial 1 exit !static routes into network B ip route 172.19.48.0 255.255.240.0 172.19.159.253 Router B router eigrp 51 redistribute static network 172.19.0.0 passive-interface serial 0 ! !default route into network A ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.19.159.252 Router C router eigrp 51 network 172.19.0.0 ! It didn' work. Router C had the correct gateway of last resort, yet you couldn't get to it from Network A (except from Router A). However, I could access devices on the 172.28.0.0 network from router C (172.28.0.0 is in another OSPF area). I think it could be due to the fact that we are using the same major network number for both OSPF and EIGRP? If anyone has any ideas let me know. Thanks, Dion ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EIGRP and OSPF
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Matt C. Lange wrote: I have eigrp and OSPF running in my home lab(5 rouetrs total) Try not redistributing static routes but ospf into eogrp and eigrp into ospf. This works for me. I will send you the config of the router doing the redistribution. This is a bad idea without redistribution filters Matt C. Lange CCNP CCDP MCSE CS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Radford Dion Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 10:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EIGRP and OSPF Has anyone out there ever integrated OSPF and EIGRP? We have a requirement where we want to take a part of our network out of the OSPF area and make it into an EIGRP network. (Good reasons for this, I can assure you) Network A - OSPF Network B - EIGRP 172.28.0.0 172.19.0.0172.19.49-56.0 172.19.50.1 X--X ---X Router ASerial Line Router B Router C What I have tried Router A: Static routes for subnetwork B pointing to Router B, redistributing the static routes into OSPF and making the serial interface passive. Router B: Static route 0.0.0.0 pointing to Router A, redistribute static routes in EIGRP and making serial interface passive. Router A router ospf 100 redistribute static subents network 172.19.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 11 passive-interface serial 1 exit !static routes into network B ip route 172.19.48.0 255.255.240.0 172.19.159.253 Router B router eigrp 51 redistribute static network 172.19.0.0 passive-interface serial 0 ! !default route into network A ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.19.159.252 Router C router eigrp 51 network 172.19.0.0 ! It didn' work. Router C had the correct gateway of last resort, yet you couldn't get to it from Network A (except from Router A). However, I could access devices on the 172.28.0.0 network from router C (172.28.0.0 is in another OSPF area). I think it could be due to the fact that we are using the same major network number for both OSPF and EIGRP? If anyone has any ideas let me know. Thanks, Dion ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Brian Feeny, CCNA [EMAIL PROTECTED] 318-222-2638 x 109 http://www.shreve.net/~signal Network Administrator ShreveNet Inc. (ASN 11881) ___ UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
