I thought I'd clear up one thing in my message about routing protocols
before Howard gets frustrated. ;-) It's not the routing protocol that does
or does not do load sharing (sometimes called load balancing, even though
it's usually not very balanced.)
The routing table installation task makes a set of routes eligible for load
sharing. Routing protocols and static routes identify potential equal-cost
routes that could get added to the Routing Information Base by the routing
table installation task. (IGRP and EIGRP can recognize routes with slightly
different metrics as "equal" when the variance parameter is used.) It's the
forwarding process that then selects a route and actually causes load
sharing to happen.
See Howard's "Routing Principles" white paper at www.certificationzone.com
for more info.
The bottom-line answer to the original question, though, is "Yes." The end
result for distance vector versus link state protocols is the same, that
is, reachability information for all known networks in a router's "area" or
"domain." This may seem like a radical thing to say to those of you just
learning the differences, but I stick to my guns on it. I think it's one of
those simple concepts that gets lost in the noise.
Priscilla
At 11:20 AM 7/21/00, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>>"Deloso, Elmer G." wrote:
>> > When comparing Distance Vector with Link State protocols, although the
>> > procedures are different,
>> > isn't the end result for both the same? That is, having a complete map
>> > of the entire network?
>> > Please correct me if I'm missing something. Thanks.
>
>
>It's a good question that I'd like to see some gurus discuss.
>
>I think people lose sight of the fact that the end result is quite
>similar. The end result is a Routing Information Base (RIB) that specifies
>reachable networks, administrative distance to each network, measured
>distance (metric) to the network, next hop, outgoing interface, and how
>long it's been since we last heard confirmation that this data is still
>valid. Do a "show ip route" and you'll see similar information, regardless
>of whether you're running RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, etc.
>
>The differences between distance vector and link-state have to do with how
>the RIB gets populated. These differences are based on what data is sent
>to broadcast/multicast addresses and neighbors, and how the received data
>is analyzed and placed into the RIB.
>
>The data that ends up in a RIB also depends on such routing protocol
>features as:
>
>* metric: how does the protocol decide between multiple paths?
>* load balancing: should the protocol remember more than one path?
>* does the protocol support route summarization?
>* does the protocol support areas?
>* should intra-area routes be preferred over inter-area routes, such as in
>OSPF?
>* are routes being filtered?
>* ETC.
>
>The real answer is, read Howard's book on routing and switching! ;-)
>
>Priscilla
>
>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > Elmer Deloso
>>
>>___________________________________
>>UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
>>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
>>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>________________________
>
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>http://www.priscilla.com
>
>___________________________________
>UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
