[168085] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Olsen)
Wed Jan 8 13:08:42 2014
From: "Nick Olsen" <nick@flhsi.com>
To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:05:30 -0500
Reply-To: nick@flhsi.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is what I figured from a quick googling. Just wanted to make sure I
wasn't missing anything..
Thanks!
Nick Olsen
Network Operations
(855) FLSPEED x106
----------------------------------------
From: "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 1:03 PM
To: nick@flhsi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
On 08/01/2014 17:52, Nick Olsen wrote:
> Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing
network.
> OSPF would've been my first choice.
you'll need to pay cisco tax then. Cisco opened up most of eigrp to the
ietf as an informational rfc, but didn't release anything related to eigrp
stub areas. This means that the ietf release is not that useful if a
vendor wanted feature parity with cisco's implementation. So far I'm not
aware of any vendors who have implemented it. Maybe some will do so in
future.
Nick
