Actually just to correct myself before anyone else decides to, I think ships in the night refers to using a different network protocol aswell as a different routing protocol working independently of each other, ie ipv6 with OSPF and ipv4 with EIGRP, either way you get my drift :)
On 05/04/2008, at 1:39 PM, Ben Steele wrote: > What you are doing is known as "ships in the night routing" where you > run multiple protocols that are unaware of each other, I would go > ahead and deploy your EIGRP config while keeping your OSPF running and > as someone else has mentioned the default admin distance for EIGRP is > 90 which will take precedence over your 110 OSPF, bare in mind if you > use redistributed routes in EIGRP they will show up as admin distance > of 170 though. > > Either way just go from router to router deploying your EIGRP and then > when your happy you've done all your devices go and check your route > tables to see what OSPF routes are still showing up and then determine > why, and if they are needed, as EIGRP obviously isn't seeing them (at > least from a non redistributed PoV). > > OSPF will pick up your slack while you deploy this in the above > method, the only real danger I see is if you a) miss a router or b) > fail to check the route tables for remaining OSPF routes after full > EIGRP migration before turning OSPF off. > > Ben > > On 05/04/2008, at 12:30 PM, Whisper wrote: > >> So long as the OSPF network remains intact until the EIGRP network >> is up and >> running, OSPF should effectively operate as a backup route in the >> cases >> where EIGRP has no route, correct? >> >> It'd it be like running a floating static route, except your using a >> dynamic >> routing protocol, wouldn't it? >> >> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Stretch <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> wrote: >> >>>> Can I run both at the same time? >>> >>> If you do, you may want to consider tweaking the administrative >>> distances until EIGRP has been fully implemented across the network. >>> Remember, by default EIGRP has an AD of 90 (internal) and OSPF of >>> 110, >>> so EIGRP-learned routes will be preferred. This has the potential to >>> cause problems if EIGRP is misconfigured or only partially enabled >>> during migration. >>> >>> stretch >>> http://www.packetlife.net/ >>> >>> Dan Letkeman wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I would like to change our layer 3 switches from ospf to eirgrp. >>>> Is >>>> there a way I can accomplish this on a live system without causing >>>> problems? Can I run both at the same time? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Dan. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/