From: ffuser9@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 21:56:59 GMT-3
Tim - What was the final consesus for the answer to
your original multicast question?
Steve
--- "Snow, Tim" <timothy.snow@eds.com> wrote:
> I opened a TAC case with the pim sparse-question
> that I had regarding
> whether the RP needs to be told it is the RP. I got
> about 6 emails from
> some of you and this is the response I got from the
> Cisco TAC. First off,
> I don't see how he didn't understand what I was
> asking and it appears all
> they want to do is send their customers a link to a
> webpage. Sheessh.
> Here's my initial question, his response and then my
> follow-up response.
>
>
>
> I've very surprised that you would just send me to a
> link on the website.
> Isn't it obvious from my debugs and question that I
> know how to configure
> multicast but was merely asking the question of "who
> was right?"
>
> I wasn't asking whether I needed an RP or not, what
> I was asking was whether
> the RP needed to be configured with it's own ip
> address which the "ip pim
> rp-address" command.
>
> I also made 2 specific references to books showing
> that one says basicallly
> 1) the RP needs itself to be configured, and the
> other says 2) The RIP
> doesn't need to know and just assumes..
>
> BTW, the 6 other people people that responded to my
> email to a cisco study
> group had no problem understanding the question that
> I asked for the book
> references that I made...
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <HIDDEN>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:08 AM
> To: timothy.snow@eds.com
> Cc: timothy.snow@eds.com
> Subject: Case EXXXXX - *ANS*Conguration and Overview
> of Multicast
> Sparse Mode and Rendez-vous Points
>
>
>
> Timothy,
> Im not quite sure what you are asking but I can
> try to assist you at
> the configuration of multicast. The cisco tac has
> not affiliation with Cisco
> Press and cant really speak to thier accuracy. The
> configuration guidelines
> here should be used when configuring Multicast.
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_confi
> guration_guide_chapter09186a008007f3c3.html
>
> The only time you do not need to specify a RP
> address is when you are using
> sparse-dense mode. When useing sparse mode a RP
> address will need to be
> configured. Thanks...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Snow, Tim [mailto:timothy.snow@eds.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: PIM Sparse-Mode - Does RP have to know
> itself?
>
>
>
>
> I have a question regarding PIM sparse-mode RP and
> whether to tell the RP that
> it is the RP. There seems to be some discrepancy
> with multiple cisco
> press books. See below.
>
> Per Jeff Doyle Vol II (pg 544, 1st paragraph, line
> 9) " The reason for
> this statement on
> this router, of course, is so that the router knows
> that is is the RP."
>
> Contradicting that is Beau Williamson, Multicast (Pg
> 343, Note section)
> "When the router,
> whose address is in this field receives the (*,G)
> Join message, it sees
> its own address
> in this field and assumes that i must be the RP for
> the group. Therefor
> a router always
> assumes the duties of the RP for a group and time it
> receives a an
> incoming (*,G) join
> that contains the address of one of it's
> multicast-enabled interfaces in
> this field"
>
>
>
> *Feb 28 22:30:41: PIM: Received v2 Join/Prune on
> Serial0.95 from
> 10.2.3.5, to us
> *Feb 28 22:30:41: PIM: Join-list: (*, 228.13.20.216)
> RP 10.224.1.1
> *Feb 28 22:30:41: PIM: (*, 228.13.20.216) Join from
> 10.2.3.5 for invalid
> RP 10.224.1.1
>
> r9(config)#access-list 9 deny 224.0.1.39
> r9(config)#access-list 9 deny 224.0.1.40
> r9(config)#access-list 9 permit any
> r9(config)#ip pim rp-address 10.224.1.1 9
>
> *Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Received v2 Join/Prune on
> Serial0.95 from
> 10.2.3.5, to us
> *Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Join-list: (*, 228.13.20.216)
> RP 10.224.1.1
> *Feb 28 22:32:40: MRT: Create (*, 228.13.20.216),
> RPF Null, PC 0x353148E
>
> *Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Check RP 10.224.1.1 into the
> (*, 228.13.20.216)
> entry, RPT-bit
> set, WC-bit set, S-bit set
> *Feb 28 22:32:40: MRT: Add/Update
> Serial0.95/224.0.0.2 to the olist of
> (*, 228.13.20.
> 216), Forward state
> *Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Add Serial0.95/10.2.3.5 to
> (*, 228.13.20.216),
> Forward state
>
>
> As you can see above, it only worked when I told the
> RP about the RP
> (that is, itself)
> I did try turning on "ip pim sparse" due to
> Williamson saying "of one of
> it's multicast
> enabled interfaces" but that didn't work. I also
> tried configuring a
> "ip pim accept-rp"
> permitting everything but that didn't work.
>
> Can anyone answer this for me?
>
> Thanks.
>
> TIm
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:15 GMT-3