On Friday, March 15, 2013 07:02:23 PM quinn snyder wrote: > 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.
Well, I guess if Cisco can get EIGRP to support SR (Segment Routing), both in code and RFC, that might be a good reason for someone to consider deploying it with MPLS and/or implementing it in non-Cisco gear if it makes the difference between winning or losing a deal with a Cisco-only shop. Cisco could, then, push this through the IETF to include MPLS-TE support if they were very serious about doing so. There is little benefit to Cisco, as it means other vendors can begin to bite into their (enterprise) pie. We can see how well Netflow was adopted by non-Cisco vendors (even if they "sort of" made it their own). Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
