re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonAll the customer has to do is run a real routing protocol to the PE and redistribute it's IGP routes into it. Not a big deal, even for a Cisco router. -------- Unfortunatly, a customer stupid and irrational enough to still be running EIGRP is likely going to be one of those customers who will reject any solution where they have to do extra work.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizon As far as I remember, I thought 2547 support for EIGRP happened fairly recently in IOS. And I'm really not sure if they support ISIS at all.
I think the choice used to be OSPF or RIP (which was too limited).
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizonyou seem to forget one issue in your analysis of "the customer" Networking is not the business of "the customer" and therefore the routing protocol used just has to "just work" with low administrative cost i.e not having to hire an expert in ISIS/OSPF/BGP or a CCIE/NA/DA/NP/ABC whatever. This is why routing protocols such as RIP ,RIPv2, IGRP/EIGRP still exists and will continue to exist. As a consultant I walk in to so many enterprises that still use IPX and SNA, and they are not getting rid of them anytime soon.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at Verizonskeptic wrote:
This is mostly wrong. EIGRP is used in older poorly built networks. In its latest version, EIGRP provides nothing that OSPF and ISIS don't already provide in better ways. ----
I do not agree. EIGRP does have one strong point. It is an excellent protocol to run in hierarchical hub-and-spoke networks. And it can be tuned to run very well over low-speed links. I was told there were a few banks in europe that ran EIGRP in a network with thousands of little offices, connected via 9.6 Kbps links. No way you can do that with a link-state protocol.
So it looks like the issue about routing protocols is not which routing protocol Verizon wants to run in its own core. It is about what protocols Verizon's customers run, and their PE routers must interact with. If Verizon's customers use EIGRP, and Verizon wants to sell MPLS-VPNs to them, then Verizon needs cisco routers.
I can't say much about the state of EIGRP. It might have more or less bugs than OSPF or IS-IS.
And I also agree with your guess that there is probably more involved than just technical reasons.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonYeah, these protocols (RIP, IGRP, IPX, etc.) do exist and will continue to linger...but not for the long term. All the latest services are IP driven and standard implementations are more important than ever for true end to end customer satisfaction. Servicing the customer's that want to operate on the cutting edge of technology is how the vendors will realize future revenue. Those enterprises with legacy equipment and implementations will eventually be forced to wake up and move forward or they'll find themselves trailing the herd.
No start-ups will be wasting time on IPX and SNA, you can bet the farm on that. The future is coming fast, and it's all about interoperability. Need Proof? Look at the customer's you consult for today. What is the percentage of those that run IPX now compared to 5 years ago?
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonStuck-In-Active...... ;)
I also find it hard to believe something like this could decide a deal of this magnitude. There are too many missing pieces to really know what the deal is. Nice fodder for a Thursday, though.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonHey, I would love to get my customers to evolve a rid themselves of some of these protocols, however, the key factor that always comes up is operational expenses and ROI, some of their apps have been around for years with very few problems. When it comes to budgeting for networking equipment unless there is a compelling application that can contribute to their overall bottomline, it will take time as you mentioned they will continue to linger.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonSo what happens when Dell, Foundry, Huawei, Brocade, Force10, 3Com, Extreme, and everyone else who has reason to want Cisco to stumble in enterprise, starts eroding CSCO's influnce over enterprise customers? And it's happenin' baby.
Carriers will find themselves in bed with an old hag.
Cisco is coyote ugly. Their customers and partners will want to chew their arms off to get outta there before the hag wakes up. Watch it happen. You can only go so far on 1996 technology.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonI would love to get my customers to evolve a rid themselves of some of these protocols, however, the key factor that always comes up is operational expenses and ROI, some of their apps have been around for years with very few problems. --------------- I can understand big application issues for propritary old non-ip protocols. But EIGRP vs. OSPF isn't really application-impacting except in the case of maybe really slow links that should be done away with before EIGRP goes.
And anyone who is willing to buy into something as complex as 2547 VPNs should reconsider their priorities if they are so conservative they can't switch to OSPF.
re: Juniper Loses Ground to Cisco at VerizonRegarding some of joeshmo's and others' comments:
I have been exposed to many, many enterprise networks. The vast majority use Cisco WAN routers and most of those are running EIGRP.
It is hugely embedded in the enterprise WAN. Cisco catters to it and pushes it for enterprises. They run it for CE-PE for 2547 VPNs and are getting their enterprise customers to push for it from their carriers. There are alternatives, but Cisco is claiming it is superior. They are using this a lever to get carrier support which of course will lock Carriers into a Cisco only solution.
EIGRP is only an example and how Cisco wields way too much power in the enterprise that carriers just can't ignore Cisco. Look at the "Cisco Powered" marking providers are using. A carrier can't ignore them.
A carrier risks losing a lot of potential business if they don't use Cisco and go with an alternative vendor. In every instance that a carrier meets with an enterprise to discuss their IP WAN architecture there is some Cisco SE in the back of the room like a Wormtongue influencing the enterprise IT group. If a carrier is not following the Cisco gospel then the SE disparages that carrier in favor of a carrier who is. I am not sure that these SEs are malicious, they are just indoctrinated and really believe some supposed featurette advantages of Cisco carrier solutions and push the enterprise toward the Cisco-powered carrier.
With Cisco counseling almost every large enterprise out there, what carrier can ignore that for their business data service? It won't matter if another vendor is technically superior. Just for business alone they have to give Cisco a piece of the action. Cisco is the Microsoft of enterprise WANs. Until that stranglehold is broken carriers will have to use Cisco to some degree over superior solutions.
--------
Unfortunatly, a customer stupid and irrational
enough to still be running EIGRP is likely going
to be one of those customers who will reject
any solution where they have to do extra work.