[168086] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Jan 8 13:14:25 2014
In-Reply-To: <6434672$51e7277a$2af2e41c$@flhsi.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:14:12 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: nick@flhsi.com
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Nick Olsen <nick@flhsi.com> wrote:
> This is what I figured from a quick googling. Just wanted to make sure I
> wasn't missing anything..
>
you could employ one of the several methods to migrate from 'less
desirable igp' to 'more desirable igp' on all of the things in
question... there's people that have done this before even :)
> 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
>
>
