Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: djane who wrote (14169)	5/19/1998 10:02:00 AM
From: Darth Trader	Respond to of 77400

What to do I am long 2 July 70 calls and 1 July 85 call? Take profit on 70's and let the 85 ride? hmmmmmm :}

To: djane who wrote (14169)	5/19/1998 10:15:00 AM
From: frankd	Respond to of 77400

This article is false. Cisco supports all routing protocols for IP within IOS on the 8510.

To: djane who wrote (14169)	5/19/1998 11:58:00 AM
From: Steve Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

djane, I am kind of believing the article is written on behalf of cisco's competetors, the likes of BAY and ANSD. I've been using all kinds of cisco routers for years. cisco's IOS supports all the standard routing protocols such as OSPF, RIP, RIP2, BGP(4) and so forth, in addition to its proprietary protocols EIGRP and IGRP. But I have to admit that configuring EIGRP is much easier than any other standard protocols and it has faster convergence, multiple path and load-sharing, and it combines the advantage of both vector-based (IGRP and RIP) and link state based (OSPF) routing protocols and it's superior over OSPF, IMO. Converting from EIGRP to OSPF would be a nightmare, because too many factors need to be considered and much more complicated configuration tasks have to be done with OSPF. The reason that most enterprise choose IGRP/EIGRP over OSPF is obvious, and that is why it is called "de facto industry standard". Regards SL

To: djane who wrote (14169)	5/19/1998 1:25:00 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 77400

Wow, Something technical (for once). I just presented a paper on IGP's such as OSPF and EIGRP and their limitations in network design. This was balanced against when to use BGP in enterprise environments. The long and short of it is that Cisco does support OSPF (and I would argue has the best implementation), its just that we also give our customers other choices. We support RIP, RIPv2, OSPF, IS-IS, BGP4 and of course IGRP and EIGRP. Why did the users questioned discuss costs when their routers already support OSPF? It is because OSPF requires hierarchy and EIGRP can work in the meshed (and even messy) environments of most older networks. The cost is associated with the fact that OSPF will require many of these networks to add additional routers or change circuit layout to fit the protocol. This is not an issue with new designs. When its new you simply design the network to fit the requirements within the limitations of a chosen protocol. And all protocols have their positive and negative points. Decisions are often religious (it must be standard), but if they are based on dollars and include legacy environments EIGRP can be less expensive to implement. Whats really strange (about the article) is that all of our routing protocols are implemented with interoperability in mind. So you can have OSPF and EIGRP on a network and only the engineers working on the routers would know. You can import EIGRP routes into OSPF and vice-versa. John