nanog mailing list archives
Re: EIGRP support !Cisco
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:03:41 +0000
On 08/01/2014 17:52, Nick Olsen wrote:
Completely agree. But this is needed to integrate into an existing network. OSPF would've been my first choice.
you'll need to pay cisco tax then. Cisco opened up most of eigrp to the ietf as an informational rfc, but didn't release anything related to eigrp stub areas. This means that the ietf release is not that useful if a vendor wanted feature parity with cisco's implementation. So far I'm not aware of any vendors who have implemented it. Maybe some will do so in future. Nick
Current thread:
- EIGRP support !Cisco Nick Olsen (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Dobbins, Roland (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Nick Hilliard (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Dobbins, Roland (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Ray Soucy (Jan 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Nick Olsen (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Dobbins, Roland (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco joel jaeggli (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Nick Hilliard (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Dobbins, Roland (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Nick Olsen (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Christopher Morrow (Jan 08)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Nick Hilliard (Jan 10)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Christopher Morrow (Jan 10)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Jimmy Hess (Jan 24)
- Re: EIGRP support !Cisco Christopher Morrow (Jan 08)