>>> "Howard C. Berkowitz" 5/14/02 11:46:39 AM >>>
>> No modern routing protocol uses composite metrics, in the sense
that
>> a numerical value is computed from several factors. I don't know
if
>> you'd consider route preference (e.g., OSPF intraarea over
interarea
>> over external) to be com
D]
>> Subject: RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
>>
>>
>> At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote:
>> >You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA
>> objectives. While
>> >I've sometimes found
P:Voice
> Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty
> Computing & Engineering Technology
> Manatee Community College
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subjec
Howard, thanks for your input. Comments inline...
Hal
> -Original Message-
> From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
>
>
inal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Peter van Oene
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
Couple thoughts here Rick. First off, always consider that there may b
At 4:41 PM -0400 5/13/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote:
> >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link
state.
This is a confusion caused by Cisco marketing, partially because they
associated update-only protocols with a hello su
At 7:04 AM -0400 5/14/02, Marko Milivojevic wrote:
> > Personally, when I'm teaching beginning IP, I start with binary, and
>> then VLSM/CIDR becomes a natural idea. I then introduce dotted
>> decimal, and only as an afterthought mention classes. Works well
>> whenever I've tried it.
>
>
t;Granting them that authority is almost as inimical to a better understanding
>of the subject matter as letting them define the structure & content of OSI
>layers.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Rick"
>To:
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:42 PM
>Sub
as letting them define the structure & content of OSI
layers.
- Original Message -
From: "Rick"
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
> Priscilla,
> I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not bu
>
> > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote
Lammle
> > CCNA fluff.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP
>study
> > >guide for more info.
> &
At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote:
>You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While
>I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is
>useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept
>of composite metrics, p
> Personally, when I'm teaching beginning IP, I start with binary, and
> then VLSM/CIDR becomes a natural idea. I then introduce dotted
> decimal, and only as an afterthought mention classes. Works well
> whenever I've tried it.
This is of course natural, but have you ever wandered how
cument by you.
>Rick
Find ONE technical, not marketing or a throwaway line in courseware,
definition of what a hybrid protocol is.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
>To: "Rick" ;
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:35 PM
>Subject: Re:
At 4:41 PM -0400 5/13/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote:
> >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link
state.
This is a confusion caused by Cisco marketing, partially because they
associated update-only protocols with a hello su
cument by you.
>Rick
Find ONE technical, not marketing or a throwaway line in courseware,
definition of what a hybrid protocol is.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
>To: "Rick" ;
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:35 PM
>Subject: Re:
At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote:
>You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While
>I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is
>useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept
>of composite metrics, p
as letting them define the structure & content of OSI
layers.
- Original Message -
From: "Rick"
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
> Priscilla,
> I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not bu
cument by you.
>Rick
Find ONE technical, not marketing or a throwaway line in courseware,
definition of what a hybrid protocol is.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
>To: "Rick" ;
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:35 PM
>Subject: Re:
Reposting what I sent earlier. Never saw it posted. One more tidbit:
A link-state protocol runs the shortest path first (Dijkstra) algorithm.
(EIGRP, on the other hand, develops a routing table using distance-vector
info.)
For more info on the shortest path first algorithm, see this URL. Near
At 4:41 PM -0400 5/13/02, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>At 04:13 PM 5/13/02, Mike Mandulak wrote:
> >Lammle refers to EIGRP as being a Hybrid of distance-vector and link
state.
This is a confusion caused by Cisco marketing, partially because they
associated update-only protocols with a hello su
At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote:
>You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While
>I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is
>useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept
>of composite metrics, p
eod/NSO/CSDA on 14/05/2002 09:42 am -
"Rick"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14/05/2002 08:42 am
Please respond to "Rick"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors?
[7:43994]
Is this part of a business
see any Rutgers Paper."
>
>can't find it in the archives, but as a collector of odd protocols, I am
>certain I recall correctly..
>
>Chuck
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: ""Howard C. Berkowitz""
>Newsgroups: groupstudy.c
At 4:25 PM -0400 5/13/02, Logan, Harold wrote:
>You're right about IGRP still being listed on the CCNA objectives. While
>I've sometimes found it frustrating to teach an outdated protocol, IGRP is
>useful as a teaching tool. With IGRP you can easily demonstrate the concept
>of composite metrics, p
EIGRP does use poison reverse, and that's more evidence of its
distance-vector behavior.
I think I have been excluded again. I wish the proctor would let me back
in! :-()
Priscilla
At 12:15 AM 5/14/02, Michael L. Williams wrote:
>I agree with Kent. Although the link you (Rick) provided u
At 6:42 PM -0400 5/13/02, Rick wrote:
>Priscilla,
>I hate to differ with you on this Hybrid or not but the source says
>it is considered a Hybrid routing Protocol. check the link for yourself
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/en_igrp.htm
>
>I myself am not a fan Lammle, but
- Original Message -
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz"
To: "Rick" ;
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
> At 6:42 PM -0400 5/13/02, Rick wrote:
> >Priscilla,
> >I hate to differ with you
then it could cover EIGRP also.
EIGRP
> >is
> > > also distance-vector. I don't think the test does cover it, but it's
not
> > > because the test only covers distance-vector. It's probably because
of
> all
> > > the extra features in EIGRP, such
n't do. Its complex metric is also a feature not found in
many
> > other distance-vector algorithms, (except IGRP of course).
> >
> > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote
Lammle
> > CCNA fluff.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> &g
I agree with Kent. Although the link you (Rick) provided uses the word
"link-state", it uses it once in the opening and once in the summary...
That's it! The fact is that one needs to analyze the protocol to see it's
behavior... it may well have traits of this or that type of protocol but no
pt IGRP of course).
> >
> > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote
Lammle
> > CCNA fluff.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP
> study
> > >guide for more
ithms, (except IGRP of course).
> >
> > Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote
Lammle
> > CCNA fluff.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> > >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP
> study
> > >guide fo
).
>
> Please do not send messages to me directly, especially not to quote Lammle
> CCNA fluff.
>
> Priscilla
>
> >He only gives a brief mention of EIGRP and says to refer to the CCNP
study
> >guide for more info.
> >
> >- Original Message -
>
Like DLSw, token ring RIF calculation, NLSP, and a few other obscure an
obsolete technologies, IGRP will no doubt continue to have a place in Cisco
examinations just because it provides one heck of a way to screw you, the
test taker.
Chuck
( been there, done in by that )
""Priscilla Oppenheimer
eatures in EIGRP, such as the diffusing update algorithm
>(DUAL),
> > with the feasible successors and all that other BS. Come to think of it,
> > maybe I'm glad I don't have to cover it! ;-)
> >
> >
> > >----- Original Message -
> > >Fro
]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
Well, it occurs to me that IGRP would be easy to implement even without
Cisco's permission. ;-) It's a simple protocol, for one thing. Also, the
Rutgers paper that d
m glad I don't have to cover it! ;-)
>- Original Message -
>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>To:
>Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
>
>
> > Well, it occurs to me that IGRP would be easy to imple
Lamme's CCNA study guide states that the courde and exam only covers
distance-vector routing protocols (RIP and IGRP).
- Original Message -
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:
Well, it occurs to me that IGRP would be easy to implement even without
Cisco's permission. ;-) It's a simple protocol, for one thing. Also, the
Rutgers paper that describes IGRP has been out for years. Cisco never
objected to it.
EIGRP would not be easy to implement without Cisco's blessings,
At 4:02 AM -0400 5/13/02, nrf wrote:
>In-line
> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nokia might support it, but I have been (fairly reliably) told that Cisco
>> will *not* be supporting IGRP as of one of the newest IOS releases. I
>> can't find the announcement o
nrf wrote:
>
> vendor compatibility between some other vendor and Cisco. For
> example, does
> anybody know of another vendor that supports, say, EIGRP? Or
> CDP? Now you
I know that Netscout probes are identified as CDP neighbors.
Not sure that I remember seeing anything else identified a
uot;
To:
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: Is IGRP actually supported by other vendors? [7:43994]
> In-line
> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nokia might support it, but I have been (fairly reliably) told that
Cisco
> &
In-line
wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nokia might support it, but I have been (fairly reliably) told that Cisco
> will *not* be supporting IGRP as of one of the newest IOS releases. I
> can't find the announcement on CCO (if there is one), so take with a grain
>
Comments inline...
--- "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> I don't know the specifics of the Nokia case. Cisco
> has, however,
> both supplied router blades running IOS on an OEM
> basis to vendors
> including Cabletron, and licensed a software port to
> DEC (IOS on DEC
> hardware -- Brouter 500?
At 11:42 PM -0400 5/12/02, nrf wrote:
>Just found this while surfing around.
>
>"As a network device, the Nokia IP330 supports a comprehensive suite of
>IP-routing functions and protocols, including RIPv1/RIPv2, IGRP, OSPF and
>BGP4 for unicast traffic..."
>http://www.nokia.com/securitysolutions/p
45 matches
Mail list logo