Talk:Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

It's Proprietary isn't it?

The opening paragraph says this is an open routing protocol. I was pretty sure it was cisco proprietary so I looked it up.. straight from the horses mouth as it were: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/net_mgmt/active_network_abstraction/3.7/reference/guide/routpro.html#wp1052383.

Can I get a second for changing the wording from "open routing protocol" to "cisco proprietary routing protocol" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F550:100:2:21AE:319E:2DA2:330F (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

According to Cisco, they are planning on making EIGRP an open protocol. However, I believe that the article should be improved by rewording the introduction in order to remove ambiguity. <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/ps6630/qa_C67-726299.html>.

Hrbm14 (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking

Hello to anyone. I have partially reworked the article on December 26th (from IP address 158.193.152.134, just forgot to log in). I would like to hear anyone's suggestions to article contents, completeness and clarity. There are still crucial parts missing:

description of diffusing computations as proposed by Dijkstra and Scholten
description of the DUAL finite state machine itself
description of the overall EIGRP algorithm
Authentication of routing peers
What else?

I am planning to add those in due time. Paluchpeter 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More things to add: discuss autonomous systems and AS numbers, Reliable Transport Protocol (how EIGRP uses multicast to send updates to the multicast address 224.0.0.10, and if no acknowledgment is received from known neighbors, it switches to unicast), and classless wildcard host mask (subnet mask complement). Dejaphoenix (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum EIGRP Hop Count

I've seen a lot of conflicting arguments regarding what the actual maximum hop count for EIGRP is, to the point where I was watching a snippet of a video from Train Signal on EIGRP and the instructor, Chris Bryant CCIE #12933, mentioned that he's seen arguments on the net about it (even discrepancies in Cisco's own documentation). In the video, he shows that This was the the router itself claims that the maximum hop count is 100, not 220; he runs the "show ip protocols" command on a Cisco 2500 I believe:

R1#show ip protocols

Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100"
 Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set
 Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set
 Default networks flagged in outgoing updates
 Default networks accepted from incoming updates
 EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0
 EIGRP maximum hopcount 100
 EIGRP maximum metric variance 1

However, I was reading elsewhere that the default is 100, and that it could be adjusted. If the user runs 'router eigrp <AS#>' then 'metric maximum-hops', the maximum hop count can be changed from 1-255, according to IOS help:

R1#conf t

Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.

R1(config)#router eigrp 100

R1(config-router)#metric ?

 holddown      Enable EIGRP holddown
 maximum-hops  Advertise EIGRP routes greater than <hops> as unreachable
 weights       Modify EIGRP metric coefficients

R1(config-router)#metric maximum-hops ?

 <1-255>  Hop count

R1(config-router)#metric maximum-hops 255

R1(config-router)#

I suppose that this is something that should probably be checked. Daedalus01 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Division vs. multiplication error in "multiple metrics" section

Currently, in the "Multiple metrics" section of this article, the following sentences appear:

Analogously, the interface delay is a configurable static parameter expressed in units of tens of microseconds. Dividing this interface delay value by 10 yields a delay in units of microseconds that is used in the weighted formula.

I believe that some part of these sentences is incorrect. If one has a measurement in tenths of microseconds, he should multiply by 10 to obtain the measurement in microseconds. I considered performing a simple edit to change "dividing" to "multiplying," but I figured I'd post something here first to make sure that the true error did not lie somewhere else. If there is no further comment on this issue within the next few days, I will go ahead and make the edit.

Douglyuckling 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good point! You're absolutely right. I will make the change. Thank you for pointing this out!

Paluchpeter 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) The above is incorrect. The interfaces have a delay in microseconds. For example a serial link has a delay of 20,000 microseconds. Eigrp uses 10s of microseconds in its metric. Therefore to find the delay metric you would add all of the delay for a path and then divide by 10. Maybe this isn't clear, but if you had 20,000 dollars and wanted to find out how many 10s of dollars you had, you wouldn't multiply by 10, you would divide. You would have 2000 10 dollar bills not 200,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.45.81.25 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

feasability condition down side

I didn't read the article with a lot of attention, but i believe that you did not mention anywhere that there is a downside to the FC. While the condition guaranties that there will be no loops, it is too strong(i believe the article said sufficient but not necessary) by which i mean that there may be situations in which alternate paths may exist but wouldn't be used by eigrp due to them not satisfying the FC. However i believe in such a situation point eigrp will switch to active state, start the whole adjacency forming, hello packet exchancing procedure and eventually find that path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.37.122.102 (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Distance and Feasible Distance typo?

"Therefore, the router has to transition to Active state and ask its neighbors for a new route to the destination X. Assuming that the newly found path to that destination has a total distance of 100, the router will transition back to Passive state and update both its RD and FD to the new shortest path length, in this case, 10."

previous mentioned in the same section

"On the other hand, if a router needs to enter Active state for that destination, the FD will be updated with a new value after the router transitions back from Active to Passive state. This is the only case when the FD can be increased."

So in the example, is it reverting to the original value of 10, or is that a typo and it should say "the new shortest path length, in this case, 100." since "the newly found path to that destination has a total distance of 100"?

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article too technical

Hi,

There is a tag on this article, indicating that the article is too technical. Since this tag was added, portions of the article have now been rewritten. The tag may no longer apply to this article. Please review the article and if required, please remove the "too technical" tag.

It is also important to note that EIGRP is a routing protocol and is, by nature, a technical subject. Trying to explain it in simple terms could result in the factual basis of the article being brought into question.

Hrbm14 (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of WP:JARGON used in the first sentence of the lead. It goes on from there: distance-vector routing protocol, Interior Gateway Routing Protocol, classless inter-domain routing, proprietary protocol, open protocol.

EIGRP is a technical topic but there's no reason this text can't be rewritten to make, at least the lead, more accessible. I might start with "EIGRP is a communications protocol used to assist with routing functions on a computer network..." ~KvnG 14:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some additional changes. Please read and comment. Hrbm14 (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Definitely an improvement. ~KvnG 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

passive routes added to RIB?

In the section for "topology table" it says "Routes in the topology table will not be inserted into the routing table if they are passive". I think this might be an error. DUAL selects routes for the RIB based on passive routes, and from them takes successors. I could be wrong. If I'm not wrong, someone should update this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.184.45 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You are correct. The article has been changed to indicate that active routes will not be inserted into the routing table.

--Hrbm14 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015204027/http://www.globalknowledge.com/training/whitepaperdetail.asp?pageid=502&wpid=663 to http://www.globalknowledge.com/training/whitepaperdetail.asp?pageid=502&wpid=663

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]