From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Mon Aug 21 2006 - 19:33:22 ART
EIGRP and RIP cannot be used for the underlying IGP inside the
provider network because they do not have full support for features like
MPLS Traffic Engineering. The main reason why is that you can't
guarantee that EIGRP and RIP routers have a consistent view of the
overall topology since they are distance vector in nature. With OSPF
and IS-IS all devices (should) know about all links. For PE-CE routing
in MPLS VPN environments you can run RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, or static
routing though.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Tim
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:30 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: MPLS & IGP interaction
>
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> In all the examples I've seen so far, the IGP used in the MPLS domain
is
> always either IS-IS, OSPF or Eigrp.
>
>
>
> As long as the IGP does its thing and accurately distributes routing
info,
> what difference does it make which IGP is used?
>
>
>
> Is there anything inherent in RIP* that makes it unsuitable as the IGP
> within the MPLS domain?
>
>
>
> Has OSPF, IS-IS, or Eigrp been modified in anyway to make them (more)
> suitable as the IGP for the MPLS domain?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * I know the shortcomings of RIP as an IGP compared to other IGP's but
I'm
> specifically trying to focus in on the interaction between an IGP and
> MPLS.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Tim
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 15:41:58 ART