Cisco releases EIGRP to IETF

Ltat42a

Cisco posted this video on their YouTube channel 2 days ago.

Some interesting changes coming -

Cisco opens up EIGRP - YouTube

shodown

I talked about this years ago, never thought it would happen.

Bundiman

Wow this a great news. I think it will take a long time for other vendors to start adding it to their products

Prog Snob

I was just about to come here to post the same video. This is sort of groundbreaking isn't it?

GOZCU

[h=5]Announced at Cisco Live! the other day - EIGRP will no longer be proprietary, Cisco is releasing the specifications via a draft IETF RFC[/h]
Cisco opens up EIGRP - YouTube

astorrs

And I had tacos for dinner...

Pretty sure this means exactly nothing to most vendors. Almost no one is deploying EIGRP as their protocol of choice, it's all OSPF or IS-IS on the interior and BGP on the exterior; if you look into what they're open sourcing, they're keeping some of the advanced features closed (stub areas, etc.)

Tony Burke had a nice write up over on Packet Pushers a few weeks ago: Why Is Cisco Bothering with “Open” EIGRP?

networker050184

Agree with astorrs. I don't see this as a big deal. Maybe some of the smaller vendors will eventually start to include an EIGRP implementation, but I don't see it gaining much traction.

Zartanasaurus

EIGRP is looked at as the easier protocol, so I could see consultants coming in and setting up EIGRP networks for their clients.

shodown

I use EIGRP in quite a few designs when I'm building out VoIP networks. Most small to medium customers only have 1-2 cisco guys so EIGRP works best for them when they just want to route packets instead of using static routes.

networker050184

All the people that swear by EIGRP are in the same camp that swear by Cisco as a vendor so I don't really see someone setting up a Juniper network with EIGRP as the routing protocol.

FloOz

Yes but people may look at is an an option now considering EIGRP is a lot "easier" to setup than OSPF. Plus many networks I am assuming are not properly designed to be running OSPF

networker050184

Never really understood the EIGRP is easier thing, but to each their own I suppose. If a network is small enough to be running EIGRP you can usually just do a single OSPF area and the set up is basically identical.

DevilWAH

networker050184 wrote: »

Never really understood the EIGRP is easier thing, but to each their own I suppose. If a network is small enough to be running EIGRP you can usually just do a single OSPF area and the set up is basically identical.

I kind of agree, in small networks EIGRP and OSPF are not that different to configure. But I do thing EIGRP does have some benefits over OSPF, and indeed the reverse is true.

One place EIGRP does stand out is for smallish network where you have many subnets and branches. the ability to summarize as and where you wish can be a bonus. And EIGRP can scale large enough for most organisations.

I don't think I would ever rework an existing network from OSPF to EIGRP, however if I was starting out from scratch I would rather have the choice of both rather than only one.

I think how other vendors take this up will show how they feel about how important this move by cisco is.

it_consultant

This may have an unintended consequence. Shops that currently run EIGRP and are thus married to Cisco, could possibly have an easier migration path to a lower cost vendor - which in comparison to Cisco is basically everyone.

wes allen

I know RIP2 isn't as popular with the Cisco crowd, but that has worked pretty well for smaller, non Cisco networks for awhile. I guess EIGRP is *better* then RIP2, but is it enough of a difference for a vender to write new code for their gear to implement it?

DevilWAH

it_consultant wrote: »

This may have an unintended consequence. Shops that currently run EIGRP and are thus married to Cisco, could possibly have an easier migration path to a lower cost vendor - which in comparison to Cisco is basically everyone.

I do wonder if CISCO has a migration path upwards from EIGRP up there sleeve. So get people having hands on with EIGRP "tasting" the features in multiply vendors, but drawing people back to Cisco for all the extras.

So you have the shops the currently run OSFP moving to EIGRP, finding the need functions that only cisco offers and buying in one or two cisco devices in there work, so as well as giving people the path to move from cisco, it also gives cisco a path in to other networks.

I am sure a company like CISCO has thought of all the possible out comes from doing this and they only reason they are doing it is for in the medium/long term to get people using there products.

shodown

networker050184 wrote: »

All the people that swear by EIGRP are in the same camp that swear by Cisco as a vendor so I don't really see someone setting up a Juniper network with EIGRP as the routing protocol.

I agree that thats a silly idea, but also consider each environment you work in. A guy like you who works in massive networks and have the knolowdge of routing that you guys have it doesnt' matter what you choose you guys can make it work. When you consider those who work in smaller networks the level of routing is very small so EIGRP makes since for them. I'll do whatever, but I see the business case for it.

instant000

1. It's not really "OPEN" from reading the FAQ Cisco posted on this topic on their website. (Someone earlier in the thread already pointed that out.)
2. Cisco seems motivated to help themselves to get greater mention of EIGRP, so that NIST can recommend to government agencies that they use it to support their IPv6 migrations. When this is completed, expect Cisco to make a bold announcement on their home page, Youtube, etc., as they say how much they're supporting IPv6 migration for the federal government, and for anyone else who will drink their koolaid.

Source: Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) Informational RFC Frequently Asked Questions* [IP Routing] - Cisco Systems

Cisco pretends that it is a FAQ, but from my point of view, someone from marketing wrote it as something they are going to use to fight back against OSPF, and leverage to make EIGRP the routing protocol of choice.

chrisone

great news! i am sure other vendors will jump on this.

EMcCaleb

networker050184 wrote: »

Never really understood the EIGRP is easier thing, but to each their own I suppose. If a network is small enough to be running EIGRP you can usually just do a single OSPF area and the set up is basically identical.

I'm with you, i really don't understand how EIGRP is easier. Particularly when you factor in having to do any sort of SIA troubleshooting. And you're right, if it's that small just put everything in one area. If someone is really determined to use a DV protocol just use Ripv2.

It wouldn't surprise me if instead of rolling out complete EIGRP stacks other vendors develop some rudimentary interoperability functionality. Enough to let them crawl into some DoD/DHS environments that have large scale EIGRP implementations.

Mrock4

EIGRP being an open standard would be a great thing, I think, IF it was truly an OPEN standard..not partially open.

millworx

Thought you guys may all find this interesting. Cisco just opened up EIGRP 2 days ago and published their RFC with the IETF!

Heres the links!
http://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-savage-eigrp-00.txt

Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) Informational RFC Frequently Asked Questions  [IP Routing] - Cisco Systems

I don't know if this was a good move. I think they would lose market-share if their customers are heavily EIGRP and vendors come out with cheaper routers that support the protocol. Allowing inter-vendor operability in my mind could have a negative impact on market share. What are your thoughts?

4_lom

Probably not a very smart move on their part. Now that it's no longer proprietary, other vendors can adopt it and sell it for cheaper. Cisco isn't exactly known for it's low prices.

I don't know about your location, but we are mainly using HP ProCurves, SonicWalls, etc. I see a few Cisco devices here and there, but not as many as one would think.

Node Man

dupitity dup dup dup

YFZblu

According to Packet Pushers:

What Cisco should have said in its announcement was that, “Cisco EIGRP is now an open standard, but…” The article goes on to list three things that irked me right away, and gave me the notion to rename their article.

1. Advanced features of EIGRP (namely stub areas) will not be released to the IETF.
   
2. Informational RFC allows Cisco to retain control of the EIGRP protocol.
3. EIGRP is still technically proprietary.

Why Is Cisco Bothering with “Open” EIGRP?

prtech

I don't think customers use Cisco equipment solely because of EIGRP. A lot of our customers use Cisco because that's what their IT staff knows. Majority of them run OSPF. So I wouldn't call it a bad move.

DevilWAH

I always find it odd that people think that CISCO would not have weighed up the pros and cons of doing this?

this will open up a path for some to leave CISCO to other vendors, and at the same time it will bring others to CISCO on balance it will most likely make little difference.