Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ns-mx!argos.weeg.uiowa.edu!jnford
From: jnford@argos.weeg.uiowa.edu (Jay Ford)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: RIP vs IGRP
Message-ID: <5955@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 14:08:37 GMT
References: <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Reply-To: jnford@handlebar.weeg.uiowa.edu
Organization: Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Lines: 25

In article <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, tli@cisco.com (Tony Li) writes:
|> The manual is wrong or at the very least incredibly unclear.  You can
|> redistribute subnet information into RIP.  The correct paragraph
|> should read something like:
|> 
|> 	Subnet information can only be redistributed into protocols
|> 	which support subnet information.
|> 
|> Thanks, we'll fix the manual.
|> 
|> Tony

Does this mean that I can run IGRP and RIP simultaneously on my class B net,
and redistribute routes between the two protocols?  We have a broadband campus
backbone with cisco routers, as well as many other things which do routing but
only do RIP.  I'd like to run IGRP between the ciscos but still have them
converse with the other routers via RIP.

Actually I'd like to run OSPF everywhere, but that will have to wait a while.
Heck, there are still systems (e.g. IBM) which don't do dynamic routing at all,
but at least they all do subnetting now (I think).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Ford, Weeg Computing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
jnford@handlebar.weeg.uiowa.edu, 319-335-5555