Juniper, their fiercest opponent, have proliferated OSPF users due to a high number of router sales. Upon seeing the article title, I got excited. EIGRP would be open. No one wants to be stuck with a proprietary protocol. This is compounded by the fact that financially viable, sound alternatives exist to Cisco these days.
Like Cisco licensing, a big stumble occurred in the second paragraph. So, the advanced features of EIGRP are not being released — no stub areas, no way to control propagation or logically define areas. It works and works well, but you can learn to rearchitect around it.
Why do that? Because other vendors offer such a better price point that it is cheaper to migrate than pay to be locked in, a giant area to be sad about. This could potentially lead to stifled innovation from the outside, as they have final say. On the one hand, they ask vendors to develop, but still tightly control the best features. Which really leads to number three. The best features are tightly controlled. I expected it to be rather open, but there are caveats. Has Cisco not learned from its previous endeavors — namely ISL and PAgP, but many more that others can point out — that proprietary means lock in?
Lock in equals no-no. NO means NO. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh. I have reached out to Donnie Savage with a hope to chat more about the draft.
I could be missing something, but it seems this one, so far, is a misstep. I do believe that if one chooses to deploy EIGRP at this point in time, that it will make much more sense to go with the vendor that originated it, rather than what is bound to be a buggy 1.
I agree with the likely bugginess of early code released on the open spec. That said, not everyone needs to scale an EIGRP domain up to hundreds or thousands of routers, and so keeping the active query domain reined in is less of a concern. You betcha. I think perhaps. The point is, who cares about this? Even if it was fully open, who would implement it and from those that would, who would be put off by the exclusion of stub areas?
Those are still big industries. Oh and by the way, I know of banks who use eigrp. Now perhaps over time eigrp may go away. I wonder if CDP will go the same route. After all we have lldp out there. It may, but the usage and demand have to decrease for a long period of time before they pull the plug on it.
Same is true of eigrp. As long as Cisco sees a demand for their solution that the feel is a better solution in some cases, the will continue to offer it and include it in training. If you want to get rid of eigrp, you need to convince the users of it to stop using it. It is still very much alive and well out there. Don't mix up learning stuff and real world needs, you have very specialized certification for what you want already.
Network Engineer need to know that kind of protocols because of "general culture", it's just that fact even if its unused.
I'm not saying we should abandon it and destroy it or never speak about it. I'm just saying we shouldn't test on it. Like a lot of other things it's good for all network engineers to know about it - if you want to you can read about it and learn it - but to make it part of the CCNP spec makes it mandatory - makes it something that we HAVE to learn and most likely never use.
I don't see why it's part of the exam blue-print that's all - surely it would make sense to remove it test on things that are more common, to make the certification more valid for the community at large. You are making an assumption that it isn't used enough in the real world to justify it being on a test. Eigrp is used in the real world and it is used by more than education and govt. Why is RIP still on the test?
If a routing protocol is going to be dropped, I would think it would be RIPv1. Just because you don't use it and don't see others using it, it doesn't mean it's not being used. I know of banks and an airport that use eigrp. It is still out there and used, thus it is still a testing item.
I know a lot of networks which use only static routing, so we should not be tested about routing protocols? I use static routes in various places in my network.
It reminds me of a guy presenting a session at CiscoLive in London and calling these routes "tragic routes", ain't it funny, don't you think? Static routes do have their place. Sometimes tragic circumstances are a good place for their use. I ran into that just yesterday. We also use alot of static routes although we are planning on changing that. We use gre vpn and there was some debate that there are alot of issues with.
This was a response to "Network Engineer need to know that kind of protocols because of "general culture", it's just that fact even if its unused. I appreciate the discussion folks excluding the personal attacks which I'm suprised to see from us professionals. Perhaps my original post was too flippant or hilarious , so let me clarify my position I still don't think so.
I've interview 's of engineers over the years and knowledge of EIGRP is always given a pass - if you know it great - if you don't that's understandable because it's proprietary and getting experience with it is difficult.
ISIS knowledge is on the other hand very much expected these days. Oh but wait ISIS is only for service providers right? I've seen no personal attacks on here. There has been no name calling or degrading of character that I can see.
Just different views of perspective and observation. It seems to me that the main point of this discussion is " should eigrp be a testing item if no one uses it". I debate the statement that no one uses it. My observations tell me that it is used and that it makes sense to have a Cisco protocol on a Cisco certification.
Now, when you say "should it be part of a industry certification" that changes the nature of the question. But as far as testing on it in detail, it would totally make sense not to test a proprietary protocol on a generic, vendor neutral certification. That, I can totally agree with. I simply do not share your opinion and, believe that these protocols should be covered and depending on your business requirement then you might not see it important to know EIGRP.
As i mentioned each industry and business is different and therefore it simply allows us to pull out a protocol from the toolbox and apply it. Therefore, it seems that you do not have the experience to understand that each business has different requirements and as such seek different skill sets. Moreover, it is important to understand various protocols when it comes to creating a design or to solve a problem.
For example, having to redistribute between two protocols. As it stands, there are no high level generic networking certs. Makes a lot of sense that they ensure they know a neat protocol that does indeed set it apart from it's competitors in certain areas.
Just a little surprised to see a posting like this from an experienced engineer, maybe you have not put enough thought into Eigrp and its place in your toolkit.
Eigrp fits into many designs where other protocols just dont really fit and are downright not suitable for example DMVPN. I dont think it would be ok for cisco to drop it from the exam syllabuses if anything its as good as saying lets do away with EIGRP from the networks a cost that many business may not be willing to incur-removing it is as expensive as adding it in the first place even worse.
Well we could but to me I dont see any reason why, its been working ok all these years. Being proprietary is not good enough reason. If it was then Bill Gates would run out of business. Many folks have already deployed EIGRP and if we dont have guys who know how to manage it then it would affect business.
So for as long as business will be affected then business drivers wont accept the fact that cisco has stopped providing support for the protocol. I can appreciate your thoughts on this, but I don't share them. EIGRP is the only interior routing protocol we use, for our company, all over the world. We want to stay a strictly Cisco shop. Great discussion though! I wouldn't consider the Cisco certs vendor-neutral networking certs. Quite a bit of Cisco "specific" info, from CLI work to design principles.
Proprietary protocols can be a large part of any industry. Even someone wanting to be an industry generalist should be familiar with proprietary protocols that have a large share in their technology space.
I couldn't imagine ageneral digital audio person who would eschew mp3, for example. Many times, standards start as, or are enhanced by, proprietary protocols. Hey I'm big enough to say from the response here that it's clearly more widely used that I gave it credit. I'll keep this in mind. I understand that Cisco exams aren't neutral but they have been the benchmark for a long time to which we are all judged - this is changing clearly but it still holds true I think.
Hmm I'm not sure I agree with you on that Jason. We care very much about all aspects of networking these days - not only just for our generic core network IGP but we also have large data-center enviroments and cutomer L3VPN routing-instances. Having never worked in a SP environment, I would be curious to know what protocols are used besides BGP and for what reasons. I know IS IS is out there, but again, that is not the typical enterprise protocol like eigrp and ospf.
That is the business I work in so eigrp is plenty used. I totally see where you are coming from if you work in the SP environement. We most definately have static routes configured for various reasons not least of which are NULL routes and aggregate routes. We do also have some RIP in places but this is just due to vendor support on legacy hardware or technology.
Very cool. Haven't had much exposure in the SP space. Knowing in what area you work in makes your original question make all the more sense.
0コメント