Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!noc.sura.net!oleary
From: oleary@sura.net (dave o'leary)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: RIP vs IGRP
Message-ID: <1991May8.165659.3502@sura.net>
Date: 8 May 91 16:56:59 GMT
References: <34858@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <5955@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Organization: Suranet, College Park, MD
Lines: 36

In article <5955@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jnford@handlebar.weeg.uiowa.edu writes:
>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?  

Yes, you *can* do this, however, as has been pointed out on several 
occasions, feedback between two different routing protocols running in
parallel using different systems of metrics can cause interesting meltdowns,
as has been observed during various OSPF-RIP experiments :-)

>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.
>

If you can run separate RIP routing domains connected by IGRP domains 
or vice versa it will make your life easier...

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

dave o'leary, SURAnet NOC Mgr.
301-982-3214