|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > March 2003 > IGRP
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Chris Centore 2003-03-27, 2:24 pm |
| I am setting up some 1751 routers with two ethernet interfaces. one
interface will go to a 350 Bridge and the other to the local network. My
'WAN' network will be 172.16.0.0/16 and the lan networks are different at
all locations. I was thinking of using igrp as the routing protocol. Do I
need to enable igrp for both networks in each router or do I need to just
use for the 172.16.0.0 network? Also, if you think another protocol would be
more appropriate please let me know.
--
Chris Centore
Network\Security Engineer
Epic Technologies, LLC.
931.526.3742
| |
| email_NOSPAM@sover.net 2003-03-29, 2:24 pm |
| I would advise against IGRP, EIGRP is MUCH more advanced. If you don't
care about the extra features and just want to route packets then I would
suggest RIP or static routes. In general you need to have the same
routing protocol on ALL of the routers in the network unless you want to
start to deal with redistribution.
______________________________
______
Talk is cheap. Supply exceeds Demand.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Chris Centore wrote:
>
>
> I am setting up some 1751 routers with two ethernet interfaces. one
> interface will go to a 350 Bridge and the other to the local network. My
> 'WAN' network will be 172.16.0.0/16 and the lan networks are different at
> all locations. I was thinking of using igrp as the routing protocol. Do I
> need to enable igrp for both networks in each router or do I need to just
> use for the 172.16.0.0 network? Also, if you think another protocol would be
> more appropriate please let me know.
>
> --
>
>
>
> Chris Centore
> Network\Security Engineer
> Epic Technologies, LLC.
> 931.526.3742
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|