13 Jun
2015
13 Jun
'15
7:39 p.m.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net> wrote:
I have, but one must be willing to listen. The problem with the UCSD
gateway
routing not working with more specific announcements.
If BGP announced subnets were to IGP between each other announcements from
one another and UCSD, I don't see how there would be a problem.
create
The protocol was designed by Cisco Systems
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems> as a proprietary protocol,
available only on Cisco routers, but Cisco converted it to an open standard
in 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Interior_Gateway_Routing_Protocol
I won't fault you for having out of date knowledge... it's only been 2
years.
Use OSPF for stubs. It's much more suited and better documented.
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On 6/13/15 6:43 PM, Don Fanning wrote:
That's not a router vendor.
I'm not trying to buy a vendor. I'm trying to route packets. Leave your
CFP's in my work email.
> If
they are good ideas I'm open to consider them. EIGRP ties you to
> one vendor (cisco), and frankly they suck :)
https://github.com/janovic/Quagga-EIGRP - you were saying? > We
are talking about the UCSD gw not being able to reach anyone using
> BGP to announce their subnet to the global routing table.
And a solution for
it. If you got a better one, by all means speak. > Spec is all that's needed. Code means
we're developing something
> that's non-standard, and means no router vendor will support it.
>
Yeah, and spec never stopped a developer from not following it or doing
their own thing. Don't believe me? Ask Microsoft, Google or any other
company. I don't have to cater to your chosen network vendor, I can my own. Standards make sure that there is
interoperability within
guidelines. And as I recall, EIGRP is a standard.
Are we really arguing about EIRGP being an open standard?
No it's not a standard. It's an informational draft, not an standards
track
RFC. The draft is dead at the IETF. Cisco retains full control over it,
and
the patents surrounding DUAL. Secondly its not a full implementation of
EIGRP, stub areas are not documented.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-savage-eigrp-02.txt I have on good authority the companies you cited are
not re-inventing the
wheel. They may develop standards and then ask that we (network vendors)
support them, but they don't make their own one off protocols. Case in
point,
segment routing.
Segment routing is a fix for a network management problem. Not an
application or systems problem.
Again, people can always just stick with IPIP and leave you out of the
loop. Or just choose not to peer to your IGP and not have you announce
their subnets.