![]() If all the timers are in default for both EIGRP and OSPF, then the question is whether there is a Feasible Successor - FS, in the EIGRP network or not. But when it comes to default protocol convergence, or in other words, control plane convergence, it is related to the protocol timers. OSPF with the OSPFv3, which is a completely new routing protocol and has many differences from OSPFv2, but EIGRP supports IPv6 without requiring a new protocol.įrom the data plane convergence point of view, which is known as Fast Reroute as well, both protocols converge equally fast. ![]() Compare to SPF, Dual requires much fewer resources on the Routers.ĮIGRP is a TLV based protocol, but OSPF fixed header, so when it comes to extendibility, EIGRP is also a clear winner.īoth EIGRP and OSPF support IPv6 of course. OSPF is an IETF standard protocol.īoth protocols can be considered easy, although there are so many different types of LSAs and OSPF Areas in OSPF since there is so many public and private resource for it, it reduced the complexity of OSPF over years.ĮIGRP runs Dual Algorithm for path calculation and OSPF runs Dijkstra/SPF algorithm. Thus EIGRP is not an Industry-standard protocol. EIGRP can converge faster if there is a Feasible Successor compared to OSPF but both of them can support IP FRR - Fast Reroute as well.ĮIGRP although there is an EIGRP RFC 7868, is an Informational RFC. OSPF can support Fast Reroute with LFA, Remote LFA, TI-LFA, and RSVP-TE FRR as with EIGRP. Only OSPF and IS-IS, a link-state protocol do. Most of these technologies, if not all, require topology information.ĮIGRP doesn't carry topology information in the network. This means Cisco's own routing protocol EIGRP is not suitable for their network, as it is not a standard-based protocol.Īlso, Service Provider provides SLA, service guarantee, Fast Reroute, and many other capabilities today by running Segment Routing, LFA, Remote LFA, TI-LFA, RSVP-TE, and many other technologies in their network. The service provider wants to have a vendor-neutral routing protocol. ![]() They don't carry customer prefixes over IGP, for the customer prefixes in the Service Provider, BGP is used. IGP protocols in the Service Provider networks are used to provide reachability between the edge nodes of the Service Provider. They are both excellent Interior Gateway Protocols but they are not suitable for the Internet Edge.ĮIGRP vs OSPF as Service Provider IGP Protocol So, scalability, and policy support are not even close to BGP. Converge slowly, hard for the capacity planning as well.īoth of these protocols have been designed as Internal IGP. Ring topologies are usually a nightmare for many aspects of every routing protocol. Because Hub to Spoke connections either will be in the Backbone area, in this case, the backbone can get very large, or we may need to make Hub routers as ABR. When it comes to large-scale Hub and Spoke topologies, OSPF requires a lot of tuning or it scales very poorly. If we think that in real-life networks, EIGRP is usually used in Hub and Spoke topologies most of the time, expecting EIGRP to run on Full-mesh topologies is not so real. The full mesh may require a lot of logical connections, OSPF with Mesh-group feature can scale but it can be a scaling problem for the EIGRP networks. In EIGRP, we don't need an ABR node for summarization for example.ĮIGRP vs OSPF in Full Mesh, Ring and Hub and Spoke Topologies This capability provides a scale advantage to EIGRP. You can summarize EIGRP prefixes at every hop. ![]() EIGRP on the other side supports as many as you want. OSPF Backbone areas and OSPF Non-backbone areas. We will look at some of those important Comparison criteria from a design point of view. We prepared the above comparison chart for EIGRP vs OSPF comparison. From scalability, standardization, working on different topologies and many aspects will be compared in this most detailed comparison blog post on the Internet. We will look at some of the important aspects when we compare EIGRP vs OSPF. In this post, we will compare EIGRP and OSPF. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |