Talk:Link-state routing protocol

This page is pretty bad. I will re-write it totally at some point, but I don't have time to do so now. Noel (talk) 18:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * How is it bad? Isn't it's information correct? Mikelito


 * It was basically not useful. See the new version. Noel (talk) 05:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

EIGRP is not a link-state protocol
I'm getting really tired of seeing the Cisco marketing balderdash about EIGRP being a "hybrid" of link-state routing and destination-vector routing spammed across Wikipedia, and even more tired of seeing repeatedly inserted after I keep removing it. I'm therefore going to spam this across every Talk: page where I see this claim, and a shorter note to the effect that EIGRP has no link-state stuff at all, in the articles.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that EIGRP has any link-state aspects.

EIGRP is simply a multi-metric, event-driven, destination-vector routing protocol. Neither the "multi-metric" part nor the "event-driven" part has anything to do with link-state.

Link-state protocols have the following characteristics:


 * they distribute topology maps, not routing tables
 * nodes run a shortest-path algorithm such as Dijkstra over the map to produce the routing table

EIGRP does neither.

Clearly, one can design link-state protocols to be either event-driven, or not; all done to date (from the original "new" ARPANet routing algorithm) have been so, but that's purely a design decision. Event-driven or not-event-drive is a completely separate design axis.

Now stop adding this bogus nonsense! Noel (talk) 05:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cisco doesn't call it a hybrid anymore. Of course I'm replying 5 years later when they don't need to market the protocol anymore. I'm changing the article to past-tense the line. 63.227.0.12 (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sugestion
A link-state routing protocol is one of the two main classes of routing protocols used in packet-switched networks for computer communications.


 * Witch is the other main routing protocol??? Maybe distance-vector routing protocol?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.214.181.212 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Someone should also do a nicely written up step-by-step example like the distance-vector routing protocol article, it would help people understand the sharing of topology by each node.128.54.39.12 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What about path-vector protocols (BGP)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.197.5 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion 2
This phrase is misleading: "This contrasts with distance-vector routing protocols, which works by having each node share its routing table with its neighbors. In a link-state protocol the only information passed between nodes is connectivity related." It suggests that the information needed to be exchanged by a link-state protocol is less than what it is needed to exchange in a distance vector protocol... which is not true. Yes, the only information passed between nodes is connectivity related, but this information is sent to all the nodes in the network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 3
The algorithm section should mention what happens if there is a tie; i.e., which node from the candidate list should be moved into the tree if two or more candidate nodes are equidistant from one of the nodes in the tree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookycave (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are all routers link-state?
The article says "The link-state protocol is performed by every switching node in the network " Is this true? --Jbarcelo (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)