Cisco has already opened EIGRP in 2013, when is Mikrotik going to add this protocol to routeros?
using ospf is overkill and not optimal in most networks, Eigrp is the most effective protocol in the networks we are building as Wisps,
It has summarization at each interface and convergence is fast, it’s less resource intensive.
The only thing is you should have multicast enabled links
EIGRP?
Cisco made it open source because is surclassed by other protocol more flexible like OSPF, and other…
I hope MikroTik staff spend time on fixing the bug than add other competitors surclassed protocols.
Currently we do not have plans to add new protocols. We are working on already implemented protocols.
+1 for not implementing EIGRP. It simply does not scale too well compared to ISIS or OSPF, and becomes a resource hog in larger networks, while converging more slowly than OSPF. Also, I have yet to see a network that didn’t work more reliably and converge faster when EIGRP was replaced by OSPF (and I have seen quite some networks where that happened). That said, there might be some cases where EIGRP is easier to implement. So no, we don’t need EIGRP, there’s way more important things to support, like properly working OSPFv3 or a multi-threaded BGP daemon. Even implementing ISIS would make more sense than EIGRP.
EIGRP is the fastest recommended protocol in medium environments,
it has backup paths precalculated and it’s DUAL algorithm needs far less resources then ospf,
it has summarization on any interface that’s needed in our networks or we have many subnets going with updates from router to router
and SPF algorithm is the most resource intensive from algorithms I have ever seen,
you can solve summary problem with areas but you will have limitation in designing, all the areas should be connected to backbone
directly, which in most cases in WISP is not possible, then you will need to use virtual links (which is not recommended even by Cisco)
that’s why EIGRP is the way to go, if you do not have very big network
may be you work in ISP not WISP, then I know why are you telling this and I agree with you
Multicast has historically had issues on Atheros based wireless links. That goes for Ubiquiti equipment and, I believe, MikroTik equipment in not too distant past. They both seem to do fairly well now. OSPF also tends to use multicast by default.
I admin the network at a small WISP. We have more than 60 towers in one OSPF area. Even the weak CPUs in the current, and recent, MIPS routerboards can easily handle the 800 or so routes carried in OSPF.
Cisco centric networking people tend to want EIGRP. Multi-vendor networking people wrote off EIGRP many years ago.
I would rather see effort go into adding ISIS than EIGRP.
I would rather see effort go into fixing OSPF than adding ISIS.
EIGRP is the fastest recommended protocol in medium environments
Reccommended from Cisco…
Over Internet are open documents from some companies, like H3G, that write about OSPF and EIGRP,
and reccommend OSPF, because not only, the most fundamental is multi-vendor, but also for many other detailed features.
All this documents explicity write about EIGRP are on decline, this is also the reason because Cisco make it open,
can not make more profit from one technology on the way of the end…
Search on Google…
I suggest to change the title of this topic from “WE NEED EIGRP” to “I NEED EIGRP”
Plus I believe Cisco didn’t open source all of EIGRP. Some of the nice features of EIGRP are not in…
H3G --:)
how can any company in enterprise or ISP business stand next to Cisco))
I like Mikrotik and prefer it over cisco routers for “feature rich - low cost - high bandwidth” ability.
But in stability it needs to be worked on a lot, for small WISP networks OSPF is overkill,
This is not only my opinion, talk to other CCNPs if you are not at this level or read cisco books(and they always say truth, because their recommended solutions always work without issue)
Mikrotik is the best choice in another segment, even ISIS would be better then ospf, but can you imagine 800+ subnets even small
routers handle it? you tend to be more efficient and implement networks to be more simple for troubleshoot, convergence and operate
I am not interested in discussing this, I have an answer from Mikrotik, so who is against leave your opinions for yourself,
I would never say don’t do this if I see somebody needs this feature, there are tons of features I do not need
but i did not ran into someone’s post begging Mikrotik not implementing it, So be calm
My 2 cents…
EIGRP would be nice to have. Not so much for our internal network, but as a PE-CE protocol. We have a few customers that use EIGRP in their networks, and at the moment we have to provide them with a L2VPN. If EIGRP was supported, we could provide them a natively supported L3VPN.
However, that’s a very minor interest. I’d hate to see MT spend time on EIGRP, when that time could be used improving existing protocols.
Of course CCNPs and Cisco books will recommend EIGRP, that’s what they do. They will always try to steer you towards using their products, and EIGRP is one of their products. Sure, the core of EIGRP has been opened up, but most of the special features have not. So, when you start building out a network using third party EIGRP, you will eventually hit a point where you need some still-proprietary feature, and then you are either stuck ‘upgrading’ (aka downgrading) to actual Cisco kit, or going back to the drawing board. McDonalds isn’t going to recommend pizza for lunch.
ISIS would also be nice to have, since it should in theory scale better than OSPF. If good support for ISIS existed, I’d consider switching to it from OSPF for the core; but again, I’d rather see MT spend time polishing what already exists.
EIGRP may be fine for enterprise networks, that can’t find anyone other than CCNAs/CCNPs to design/run it; but I can’t imagine using it for anything important (other than PE-CE) in a service provider context. ISIS is what the big boys use, and for the rest of us OSPF is better than any other option.
OSPF actually scales pretty nicely these days, as long as you don’t load it down with high-flux customer routes. I’ve got ~350 OSPF routers all in area 0, dealing with ~620 OSPF routes, and even RB750s don’t have a problem keeping up with it.
If you are building a commercial network of any size these days, you should seriously consider using OSPF or ISIS for loopbacks and link-nets only, and sticking everything else in BGP. Constrain BGP to only the edge routers, resolve BGP nexthops recursively in OSPF/ISIS, and use MPLS to reach those nexthops. It’s incredibly flexible, and very scalable.
Why would you consider OSPF overkill for a WISP?
What makes you consider WISPs different from any other type of ISP?
–Eric
+1 For no EIGRP Support
Please just fix these damn bugs in OSPF we have currently like buggy NSSA zones , or routers that get stuck in 2-way / init states after a power blip.
I think EIGRP is old-fashioned routing protocol.
OSPF scales better and has more posibilities.
I am CCNA and CCNP, I and I work currenly woth Cisco products.
I am talking about a little wisp ( not classic ISP approach) little wisp with many subnets(400 + /24 to /30)
it’s quite bad to watch all these, it just asks you to summerize
But ospf does not allow it if in single area, and if use many areas topology does not allow to directly connect them to area 0 , and virtual links are not good practice, Here in my country I know about 120 such kind of wisps, that’s why I posted such a question,
In other networks I use ospf and it’s fine there, we have specific designed wisps, consisting of 3-4000 subs each and they are more then 100
My CCNP, CCDP,CCNP-security certs I have on the shelf so I know what and why i am talking about,
Mikrotik said no, it means no, I do not think meaningful to explain anything more about needs.
And, at last, dear moderators,(awacenter and one more, do not remember your names)
you do not behave like real men should, you are deceasing my karma because you do not like EIGRP or when person tells the truth about bug or something these devices have,
I will tell you to put your Karmas you know where, your behavior in my country is called by another word
You brought up some good points though I don’t think you entirely see the point of view we are coming from in that we currently have a lot of functionality out of ROS from the get go but a lot of these features are semi broken or buggy in many cases.I agree with the Virtual Links thing even though I am forced to use these things quite often in my networks to patch IPS’s into the backbone.
Every network requires a certain tool from your toolbox to complete a job successfully and if Mikrotik is not the right tool a Cisco or a Juniper or whatnot might be the right tool for the job.
The only moderators / staff are:
normis, uldis, janisj, janisk, edmunds, mrz, kirshteins, becs and krisjanis
I leave -1 Karma for this post:
you’d better to not make such “hurting” mistake again, understand?
Other users can see here: http://forum.mikrotik.com/t/v6-14-released/77949/114
and awacenter are not one moderators.
WE ARE NOT MIKROTIK STAFF, THIS IS A USERS FORUM, YOU CAN NOT OFFEND US FOR OUR IDEA, OR OFFEND IF WE US NOT SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS, OR FOLLOW YOUR NEEDS, UNDERSTAND OR NOT???
If you do not solve anything then sit on your place and be calm
Do not put Normis and other guys next to you, they are doing well, my post is towards you two and your likes,
publishing links here like chatting women,(all see his tone is hurting:) )
I can repeat it for you if you wish, and do not forget in the next post to link these two posts also
yes, sure, if you see lots of bugs and broken things in Ros, then these all should be fixed first and then discussing another topics,
I have problem on dhcp-relay for example, can not make it work properly, from this point of view I am with you,
Good afternoon
implementing Eigrp in Mikrotik is a non sens
The only one that would be of interest to have in Mikrotik ROS is ISIS
But if you are using Cisco devices you will have to pay for advanced IP Services
Regards
Thierry
Lol. 400 routes in ospf is nothing. The slowest Mikrotik in current production could handle that without issue. Ospf is never overkill if you are talking about multiple subnets with multiple links. It just works.
I think that it would be hard for Mikrotik to make EIGRP support a priority given the other demands that they have. EIGRP certainly has its uses and is alive and well in corporate networks but I suspect that Mikrotik would not implement it unless somebody produces an open stack for it.
While there are some good objective papers comparing EIGRP and OSPF there are also many “sales” documents which emphasize the benefits of OSPF without mentioning EIGRP’s strengths. These are often associated with vendors that are trying to influence customers who may feel locked into Cisco gear because of the EIGRP support.
Most truly objective analysis shows that EIGRP effectively converges incredibly fast because of the pre-determination of “feasible successors”. It will generally therefore converge faster than OSPF. OSPF convergence generally needs to be accelerated with additional parameter adjustments and/or support protocols to achieve EIGRP convergence speeds. If an EIGRP network converges faster after conversion to OSPF you can be pretty sure that the network’s routing was fairly sick beforehand. In such circumstances typically it is the discipline imposed by meeting OSPF’s structural requirements that results in faster convergence. Therein lies EIGRP’s dilemma. It does not impose any structure which makes it very easy to deploy, but on larger networks it does in fact benefit greatly from a well-designed structure. EIGRP networks can easily grow with no real “design” and ultimately become problematic.
Cisco are certainly no slouches when it comes to networking. They have also contributed to OSPF (those Totally Stubby and Totally NSSA concepts are very useful) and implement it very well. One nice thing about Cisco gear is that if you want to use a particular protocol for a particular situation they have most likely implemented it, so you can use what makes sense not just what is available. Obviously that would be a useful situation on the RouterOS platform too but with competing demands for resources there needs to be a business case for each commitment. At the present time I don’t see EIGRP getting far enough up the list for Mikrotik to justify implementing it unless the effort to do so drops or a new/changing market strategy changes its perceived priority.