From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 10:44:25 GMT-3
At 08:40 PM 10/12/2002 +1000, Nick Shah wrote:
>Brad
>
>No one protocol is better than the other. Both have their Pros, and since
>they are highly mature protocols, they really dont have that many cons. A
>few facts related to both of them, from an operational perspective ...
>
>- OSPF is more CPU intensive than EIGRP
Modern routers have little trouble with either
>- EIGRP is a Cisco proprietory protocol, so if you are using non-cisco
>routers/devices in your network OSPF is your only choice.
I would suggest that this is a big deal.
>- MPLS capability, if desired, leaves you only OSPF as the choice (and ISIS,
>of course). I had heard that there was some work happening with making EIGRP
>mpls capable (the TLV functionality is currently absent).
Of course this only relates to MPLS-TE, not MPLS in general.
>- OSPF requires more management (even for medium sized networks), EIGRP is
>straightforward for medium sized
>networks (less mgmt. intensive)
I might agree that it is easier to setup a medium sized network with less
clue, but clue is a good thing for decent sized networks and clueful EIGRP
and OSPF networks likely require similar amounts of effort.
>- OSPF has no scalability limits, with EIGRP you really have to do proper
>summarization & stub routing etc. to achieve the scalability of OSPF (so as
>network size grows, you will find that the complexity working with EIGRP
>increases)
Neither protocol has limitless scale, however, OSPF has more inherent
scaling tools. One can achieve similar ends with EIGRP, however eventually
one tends to run into SIA issues as you decribe below.
>- EIGRP has faster convergence than OSPF (very slightly, but yet it beats
>OSPF at speed)
This is a very contestable item. Various scenarios can be designed with
both protocols to highlight strengths and weaknesses.
>Now a couple of cons..
>
>- OSPF's LSA flooding can sometimes be too much for a lesser powered router
>and low bandwidth links, well so is EIGRP SIA (stuck in active). However in
>a well laid out network (use stub areas for OSPF , summarization boundaries&
>stub routing in EIGRP) thats not too much of a problem.
>- Area mgmt. with OSPF can be quite cumbersome, however with a proper
>design, the complexity is paid off with increased stability.
I'm not sure I'd agree that area management is cumbersome.
>So if your or customers network is still in design stage, you can weigh the
>pros & cons and decide for urself.
>
>Thanks
>Nick
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Hung, Sing-Yu <Sing-Yu.Hung@pccw.com>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 4:48 PM
>Subject: OSPF Or EIGRP
>
>
> > Dear,
> >
> > I just want to know which protocol is better? OSPF or EIGRP. Because
> > my client want to change from OSPF to EIGRP without any reason. And May I
> > have your suggestion?
> >
> > Bradford Hung
> >
> > Pacific Century CyberWorks
> > Tel: 288 33125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:45 GMT-3