[c-nsp] EIGRP as industry standard ?

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Sun Jul 21 01:43:36 EDT 2013

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).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20130721/4f273b40/attachment.sig>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list