[c-nsp] EIGRP as industry standard ?

[quinn snyder]

i guess the bigger picture (and one that i've said on a few occassions 
to people both inside and outside of cisco) is "what does this change"?

i do work with several large enterprise customers who are entirely eigrp 
shops, but (and possibly because of) the use of eigrp has made them 
primarily "cisco" shops, with only special exceptions granted for other 
vendors because of a unique reason -- and with that exception comes 
consulting services because the configuration is foreign to them.  these 
customers won't be jumping to another vendor anytime soon -- because its 
what they know.  i'd assume many of these types of customers aren't 
going to be changing soon -- they are comfortable with what they know 
and the lifecycle to change would be many years down the road.

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.

while i'm all for opening up of protocol stacks -- i feel like this is 
just "goodwill" to the community -- and won't really change the status 
quo -- at least for another refresh cycle or two.  it just feels like a 
'look at what we're doing' sort of thing.  i could be wrong, though (i 
am every now and then).

q.

On 03/15/2013 09:17 AM, Andrew Clark wrote:
> Might find this document useful, Ge.
>
> <
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/ps6630/qa_C67-726299.html
>>
>
> Andrew Clark
>
>
>
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:47:42 -0500
>> From: Ge Moua <moua0100 at umn.edu>
>> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: [c-nsp] EIGRP as industry standard ?
>> Message-ID: <5141E30E.4020105 at umn.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>>
>> It was interesting to see an IETF doc about EIGRP:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savage-eigrp-00
>>
>> I?m wondering if Cisco may be releasing this to the wider Internet
>> community for possible industry standards consideration. While
>> technically classified by Cisco as a distance-vector protocol, there are
>> hybrid features of EIGRP that makes it attractive over traditional
>> link-state IGPs like OSPF & IS-IS (which I'm a big fan of). However,
>> what?s not so attractive is the proprietary nature (tied to Cisco) and
>> lack of support on other big name vendor equipment. Maybe Cisco is
>> looking to change this in the horizon.
>>
>> I'd be interested to know what other ppl way smarter than me thinks.
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Ge Moua
>> Univ of Minn Alumnus
>> --
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>