selecting a routing network

alkamalju

I have around 20 router to carry NMS data to NMS server. I am trying to select a routing protocol.

Static route and RIP is out of my consideration.

Now, i am wondering which one is better EIGRP/OSPF.

Characteristics of my network:

1. Router's will be placed in a ring.

2. There are mixed interfaces. eg. E1, Ethernet, Fiber.

3. All my router's are 2611 with IOS 12.3.

Thanks.

mikka1984

Do you have a pic of the topology?

PsychoFin

Since all the routers are Cisco, why not just use EIGRP?

networker050184

I'd go with OSPF. Never know when you might have to work another vendor in there.

APA

alkamalju wrote: »

Characteristics of my network:

1. Router's will be placed in a ring.

2. There are mixed interfaces. eg. E1, Ethernet, Fiber.

3. All my router's are 2611 with IOS 12.3.

Thanks.

1. No mesh? If no, why just a ring? Port density issues?

2. Shouldn´t be a problem with mixed interfaces - you´ĺl want to make sure that all mediums involved can support the protocol that you want to run....

3. Check Cisco´s website to validate that the IOS you have supports the protocols you want to run.... OSPF and EIGRP are in the majority of IOS versions anyway....

+1 for OSPF like networker said..... you can always manually set the OSPF cost for your circuits if you don´t want to use auto-cost reference bandwidth.... I personally like to set my costs based on RTT between the circuits.

I doubt 2611s have support for 10Gbps interfaces.... or 1Gbps interfaces...... so I´m assuming you have FastEthernet or just standard Ethernet ports available to you.

Forsaken_GA

networker050184 wrote: »

I'd go with OSPF. Never know when you might have to work another vendor in there.

I'd agree entirely with this. If there is any indication that the network will need to expand to possibly accommodate other roles and services, then you're better off going with a protocol that has interoperability between vendors. As sacrilegious as it may be to say it out loud, Cisco doesn't always provide the best solution.

APA

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Cisco doesn't always provide the best solution.

+1

I try to enforce this with pure Cisco engineers all the time......networking is not based on one vendor!

chrisone

You can always go the EIGRP route, then create an OSPF AS when merging companies and redistribute between EIGRP and OSPF, until you have a good plan to migrate the new comer to EIGRP. It is just as easy to run two protocols/AS on a router for this scenario.

However this is more of a scenario when you already "have" the network in place and you are looking for a remediation solution.

In your case since you are starting off from scratch i would recommend a few things.

1. Proper IP scheme and management
2. Summarization
3. OSPF - if you are comfortable configuring it.
4. EIGRP - much easier protocol to configure.

5. IPSEC/GRE tunnels - I always find it that when you need to link up with a partner company (non-merging/non-acquisitions) you usually run IPSEC/VPN tunnels to do this. You can run GRE over this if you want to run a protocol or you can keep it static, your choice.

Forsaken_GA

chrisone wrote: »

You can always go the EIGRP route, then create an OSPF AS when merging companies and redistribute between EIGRP and OSPF, until you have a good plan to migrate the new comer to EIGRP. It is just as easy to run two protocols/AS on a router for this scenario.

Whether you know it or not, you're proving my point

It may not be 'difficult', but it does consume additional resources on the router running both, adds complexity, and another point of failure to the network. You'd be hard pressed to make an argument for EIGRP being so superior as to make that situation worthwhile.

Just keep it simple from the beginning and use the more friendly protocol.

Panzer919

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Whether you know it or not, you're proving my point

It may not be 'difficult', but it does consume additional resources on the router running both, adds complexity, and another point of failure to the network. You'd be hard pressed to make an argument for EIGRP being so superior as to make that situation worthwhile.

Just keep it simple from the beginning and use the more friendly protocol.

I have to agree, while I LOVE EIGRP, unless you have a company that is hell bent on being a complete Cisco shop forever, use OSPF. Redistribution, while effective if done right, it is devastating if done wrong. Do yourself justice now and just run OSPF, get used to it and get it tuned how it needs to be.

burbankmarc

Am I the only person that doesn't like the OSPF hierarchal scheme? Not all networks work in a hierarchy.

Although, I agree that using an open protocol is always better than using proprietary.

chrisone

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Whether you know it or not, you're proving my point

It may not be 'difficult', but it does consume additional resources on the router running both, adds complexity, and another point of failure to the network. You'd be hard pressed to make an argument for EIGRP being so superior as to make that situation worthwhile.

Just keep it simple from the beginning and use the more friendly protocol.

Yeah i know what you mean, i was simply putting out another option that was out there

networker050184

burbankmarc wrote: »

Am I the only person that doesn't like the OSPF hierarchal scheme? Not all networks work in a hierarchy.

Although, I agree that using an open protocol is always better than using proprietary.

Most networks that aren't set up in a hierarchal manner aren't large enough to need multiple areas. If the network is large enough to need areas, then you are better off having it set up in a hierarchal manner regardless of the routing protocol you use. The layered approach works excellent for redundancy and uniformity.