Talk:Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol

message: The opening paragraph says this is an open routing protocol.  I was pretty sure it was cisco proprietary so I looked it up.. straight from the horses mouth as it were: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/net_mgmt/active_network_abstraction/3.7/reference/guide/routpro.html#wp1052383.
Can I get a second for changing the wording from "open routing protocol" to "cisco proprietary routing protocol"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F550:100:2:21AE:319E:2DA2:330F (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Proprietary isn't it?

message: Hello to anyone. I have partially reworked the article on December 26th (from IP address 158.193.152.134, just forgot to log in). I would like to hear anyone's suggestions to article contents, completeness and clarity. There are still crucial parts missing:
* description of diffusing computations as proposed by Dijkstra and Scholten
* description of the DUAL finite state machine itself
* description of the overall EIGRP algorithm
* Authentication of routing peers
* What else?
I am planning to add those in due time. Paluchpeter 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More things to add: discuss autonomous systems and AS numbers, Reliable Transport Protocol (how EIGRP uses multicast to send updates to the multicast address 224.0.0.10, and if no acknowledgment is received from known neighbors, it switches to unicast), and classless wildcard host mask (subnet mask complement). Dejaphoenix (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking

message: I've seen a lot of conflicting arguments regarding what the actual maximum hop count for EIGRP is, to the point where I was watching a snippet of a video from Train Signal on EIGRP and the instructor, Chris Bryant CCIE #12933, mentioned that he's seen arguments on the net about it (even discrepancies in Cisco's own documentation). In the video, he shows that  This was the the router itself claims that the maximum hop count is 100, not 220; he runs the "show ip protocols" command on a Cisco 2500 I believe:
R1#show ip protocols
 Routing Protocol is "eigrp 100"
  Outgoing update filter list for all interfaces is not set
  Incoming update filter list for all interfaces is not set
  Default networks flagged in outgoing updates
  Default networks accepted from incoming updates
  EIGRP metric weight K1=1, K2=0, K3=1, K4=0, K5=0
  EIGRP maximum hopcount 100
  EIGRP maximum metric variance 1
However, I was reading elsewhere that the default is 100, and that it could be adjusted. If the user runs 'router eigrp <AS#>' then 'metric maximum-hops', the maximum hop count can be changed from 1-255, according to IOS help:
R1#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line.  End with CNTL/Z.
R1(config)#router eigrp 100
R1(config-router)#metric ? 
  holddown      Enable EIGRP holddown
  maximum-hops  Advertise EIGRP routes greater than <hops> as unreachable
  weights       Modify EIGRP metric coefficients
R1(config-router)#metric maximum-hops ?
  <1-255>  Hop count
R1(config-router)#metric maximum-hops 255
R1(config-router)#
I suppose that this is something that should probably be checked. Daedalus01 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum EIGRP Hop Count

message: Currently, in the "Multiple metrics" section of this article, the following sentences appear:
Analogously, the interface delay is a configurable static parameter expressed in units of tens of microseconds. Dividing this interface delay value by 10 yields a delay in units of microseconds that is used in the weighted formula.
I believe that some part of these sentences is incorrect.  If one has a measurement in tenths of microseconds, he should multiply by 10 to obtain the measurement in microseconds.  I considered performing a simple edit to change "dividing" to "multiplying," but I figured I'd post something here first to make sure that the true error did not lie somewhere else.  If there is no further comment on this issue within the next few days, I will go ahead and make the edit.
Douglyuckling 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point! You're absolutely right. I will make the change. Thank you for pointing this out!
Paluchpeter 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division vs. multiplication error in "multiple metrics" section 

message: I didn't read the article with a lot of attention, but i believe that you did not mention anywhere that there is a downside to the FC. While the condition guaranties that there will be no loops, it is too strong(i believe the article said sufficient but not necessary) by which i mean that there may be situations in which alternate paths may exist but wouldn't be used by eigrp due to them not satisfying the FC. However i believe in such a situation point eigrp will switch to active state, start the whole adjacency forming, hello packet exchancing procedure and eventually find that path.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.37.122.102 (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  feasability condition down side 

message: Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article.  Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly.  (You can help!)
— UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 03:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss links here 

message: In the section for "topology table" it says "Routes in the topology table will not be inserted into the routing table if they are passive".  I think this might be an error.  DUAL selects routes for the RIB based on passive routes, and from them takes successors.  I could be wrong.  If I'm not wrong, someone should update this section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.184.45 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  passive routes added to RIB? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015204027/http://www.globalknowledge.com/training/whitepaperdetail.asp?pageid=502&wpid=663 to http://www.globalknowledge.com/training/whitepaperdetail.asp?pageid=502&wpid=663
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified