Blah, Proprietary .. OSPF all the way.. :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Tim O'Brien
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: static routing [7:51599]
Paul,
EIGRP is fully supported on the 40
If you have a reasonably static network address wise, and few parallel
paths in the network, maybe static routing is the best choice. I would
stick with Chuck on this one and work on figuring out what problem you are
trying to solve by introducing complexity into the network.
Protocol wise, I
Paul,
Take plenty of time to understand the network design prior to making
changes. If most all of networks are stub areas connecting to a central site
there is no immediate rush to implement dynamic routing protocols. It also
depends on the desktop protocols that are in place. For instance some
Paul,
EIGRP is fully supported on the 4006 in both the Layer3 4232 blade and the
new SupIII. I would definitely stay away from IGRP and would highly
recommend EIGRP.
Tim
CCIE 9015, CSS1
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Paul
Sent: Sunday,
fine.
Zhen Cai
www.shakespearenetwork.com
Cisco IP Telephony Hands-on Training
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Paul
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 2:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: static routing [7:51599]
Yeah, thankx ...
I want to
Paul ...
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck's Long Road"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: static routing [7:51599]
> other than the fact that dynamic routing is kewl, why do you think you
need
> it?
>
> I doubt that Cisco is going
other than the fact that dynamic routing is kewl, why do you think you need
it?
I doubt that Cisco is going to drop EIGRP any time soon. My understanding is
that Cisco is not supporting IS-IS on any of the lower end switches, but
that's a different story.
""Paul"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTE
7 matches
Mail list logo
