i guess the bigger picture (and one that i've said on a few occassions
to people both inside and outside of cisco) is "what does this change"?
i do work with several large enterprise customers who are entirely eigrp
shops, but (and possibly because of) the use of eigrp has made them
primarily "cisco" shops, with only special exceptions granted for other
vendors because of a unique reason -- and with that exception comes
consulting services because the configuration is foreign to them. these
customers won't be jumping to another vendor anytime soon -- because its
what they know. i'd assume many of these types of customers aren't
going to be changing soon -- they are comfortable with what they know
and the lifecycle to change would be many years down the road.
on the other hand -- sp's won't be changing because of the lack of mpls
support within eigrp. sure -- you can run it as an igp to carry your
transit routes, but without hooks for things like mpls-te -- its not
going to be implemented in the near future. additionally -- many of
*these* customers are 'best-of-breed' and will often look at vendor-c
and vendor-j (as well as vendor-b) based on price and performance
numbers -- not on who makes it. this won't change anytime soon.
while i'm all for opening up of protocol stacks -- i feel like this is
just "goodwill" to the community -- and won't really change the status
quo -- at least for another refresh cycle or two. it just feels like a
'look at what we're doing' sort of thing. i could be wrong, though (i
am every now and then).
q.
On 03/15/2013 09:17 AM, Andrew Clark wrote:
Might find this document useful, Ge.
<
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/ps6630/qa_C67-726299.html
Andrew Clark
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:47:42 -0500
From: Ge Moua <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [c-nsp] EIGRP as industry standard ?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
It was interesting to see an IETF doc about EIGRP:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savage-eigrp-00
I?m wondering if Cisco may be releasing this to the wider Internet
community for possible industry standards consideration. While
technically classified by Cisco as a distance-vector protocol, there are
hybrid features of EIGRP that makes it attractive over traditional
link-state IGPs like OSPF & IS-IS (which I'm a big fan of). However,
what?s not so attractive is the proprietary nature (tied to Cisco) and
lack of support on other big name vendor equipment. Maybe Cisco is
looking to change this in the horizon.
I'd be interested to know what other ppl way smarter than me thinks.
Thanks for your feedback.
--
Regards,
Ge Moua
Univ of Minn Alumnus
--
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
