Go CCIE Go!! - A Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert

EIGRP and RIP cannot be used for the underlying IGP inside the provider network because they do not have full support for features like MPLS Traffic Engineering. The main reason why is that you can’t guarantee that EIGRP and RIP routers have a consistent view of the overall topology since they are distance vector in nature. With OSPF and IS-IS all devices (should) know about all links. For PE-CE routing in MPLS VPN environments you can run RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, or static routing though.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc. http://www.InternetworkExpert.com Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705 Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705 24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> —–Original Message—– > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of > Tim > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:30 PM > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com > Subject: MPLS & IGP interaction > > Hi guys, > > > > In all the examples I’ve seen so far, the IGP used in the MPLS domain is > always either IS-IS, OSPF or Eigrp. > > > > As long as the IGP does its thing and accurately distributes routing info, > what difference does it make which IGP is used? > > > > Is there anything inherent in RIP* that makes it unsuitable as the IGP > within the MPLS domain? > > > > Has OSPF, IS-IS, or Eigrp been modified in anyway to make them (more) > suitable as the IGP for the MPLS domain? > > > > > > > > * I know the shortcomings of RIP as an IGP compared to other IGP’s but I’m > specifically trying to focus in on the interaction between an IGP and > MPLS. > > > > > > Thanks, Tim > >