Interesting. Cisco discontinued IGRP starting with IOS 12.2(13)T and 12.2(R1s4)S.
And many years ago it was recommended to me my the Cisco SmartNet people to switch form EIGRP to may be ISIS or OSPF back then as it was possible that Cisco discontinue EIGRP as well. May be they are desperate to loose control over EIGRP now and various router protocol seeing that lots more competition is coming to them now. (:> I guess after you know OSPF and in some cases if you want to use ISIS, I see no reason to have EIGRP anyway. I don't think Cisco is pushing their own EIGRP and not that I miss it anyway, but may be ISIS would be nicer then EIGRP inside an OpenBSD router, even if I do not miss it. The only advantage is that ISIS is much simpler to use and learn then properly done OSPF for a smaller and simpler network that OpenBSD may fit better with it. Some not to familiar IT guys may prefer ISIS to OSPF, but really I see no needs for EIGRP. Anyway, just my $0.02 worth for what it is. Daniel On 2/20/13 7:24 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013-02-20, Claudio Jeker <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:35:59PM +0300, Aaron Glenn wrote: >>> I'm wondering if any one is thinking/contemplating/attempting >>> implementing the newly release EIGRP draft from Cisco. >>> No, I don't have patches to contribute...this is just a simple "anyone >>> else thinking about this?" message. feel free to contact me privately >>> if this is too noisy a message (hah...misc...noisy...heaven forbid) > > interesting commentary at packetpushers if you missed it.. > > http://packetpushers.net/why-is-cisco-bothering-with-open-eigrp/ > >> Last time I looked EIGRP was a Cisco propretary protocol from the times >> when RIP was modern. I see no need to support it, I would first consider >> ISIS and adding stuff to ospfd / ospf6d. > > +1 [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
