IGPs in use

I'd have to definatly disagree.

IGP wise, EIGRP is easy and fast and it works. If ou need a *lot* of
interoperability, use OSPF.

Friends don't let friends use BGP as an IGP

I would say the most interior Routing Protocol that is out there is
BGP. It gives a better control of route announcements.


> > Is there an overview on what the dominantly used interior routing
protocols are percentagewise in large AS backbones (IBGP, OSPF, IGRP,
EIGRP, IS-IS, any?). I don't want to start religous wars on what's the
best protocol, I'm rather interested if there is an overview available
on the facts of protocols used. Is there an "objective"
(vendor-independent) feature-based overview on the compared
advantages/disadvantages (especially regarding redistribution) of the
various protocols that goes with those numbers? > > Andre' > >
zehl@berkom.de >

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
   ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs. October 26-28, 1998, Atlanta, GA.
    Three days of clues, news, and views from the industry's best and
    brightest. http://www.ispf.com/ for information and registration.

     Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am.
       Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member
               Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer
     Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834
Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Not that I want to perpetuate this thread, but I did want to add at
least a couple of observations.

One of the reasons why I *like* OSPF is that it somewhat forces you
to build your network within a set of architectural constraints. You
can't just plug boxes together in a haphazard fashion and expect it
to work efficiently -- in order to scale, one needs to partition the
network into areas, etc. Ditto for IS-IS.

On of the reasons (methinks) why many people like EIGRP is that they
can sidestep a lot of architectural planning, plug stuff together in
virtually any haphazard manner, and it generally just does the right
thing. Of course, I'm not really fond of this approach, but there seem
to be a lot of people who are. And, of course, the efficiency depends
greatly on how things are plugged together, and how address allocation
is done throughout the network (for auto-aggregation), but for the most
part, people can just slap stuff together, build a really sloppy network,
and it will still hobble along.

Like I said, just an observation.

- paul