That is true but that behavior is not specific to link state protocols. 
I've already deleted the earlier posts from this thread but I believe it
was Peter Van Oene (and maybe someone else) who explained 
the technical differences between DV and LS operations.  

If you don't have that message any longer you can go to the GroupStudy
website and look at it on the web board.  I thought that post explained
the differences between LS and DV very well.

John

>>> "Scott Terminiello"  3/7/03 1:13:02
PM >>>
It was my understanding that EIGRP only notifies its neighbors of
topology
changes the same way OSPF works.  This is in contrast to RIP which
sends out
an update at specified intervals (30 secs for RIPv1) regardless of
whether a
topology change or not.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Neiberger" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: EIGRP for CCIE Written [7:64707]


> This really isn't the case.  EIGRP is purely distance vector.  In no
way
> does it behave like a link state protocol.  It establishes neighbor
> relationships  and it uses hellos, as do OSPF and IS-IS, but those
have
> nothing whatsoever to do with whether protocol is DV or LS.  Some
people
> get hung up on the complex metric, but who says DV protocols have to
use
> only hop count?
>
> The actual operation of EIGRP is DV.  There are no LS components to
> EIGRP.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> >>> "Scott Terminiello"  3/7/03 8:28:00
> AM >>>
> EIGRP is a hybrid.  It can be said that it is a distance vector
> routing
> protocol that acts like a link state routing protocol.
>
> Scott
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Johan Bornman"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 7:11 AM
> Subject: EIGRP for CCIE Written [7:64707]
>
>
> > Is EIGRP a Hybrid or Distance Vector protocol?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64793&t=64707
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to