From: Ken.Farrington@barclayscapital.com
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 06:17:59 GMT-3
The documentation is incorrect. Had this confirmed by Cisco :))
-----Original Message-----
From: P729 [mailto:p729@cox.net]
Sent: 14 July 2003 00:28
To: SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1); ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Anycast RP
I'm not a multicast guru, but I believe you are correct. The whole point of
Anycast RP with Auto-RP is to advertise the same IP address for the RP so
that the nearest (topologically) RP is used when both are up and then to
take advantage of a fast converging routing protocol to failover to the
other RP when one of them goes down. Perhaps a typo carried over from the
"Auto-RP with Multiple RPs" scenario.
Regards,
Mas Kato
https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
----- Original Message -----
From: "SHARMA,MOHIT (HP-Germany,ex1)" <mohit.sharma@hp.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 5:53 AM
Subject: Anycast RP
Hi All,
Has anyone checked this config on the CD for anycast rp
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/intsolns/mcst_sol/rps.htm#x
tocid12
In the config for anycast RP with Auto-RP scenario, they are using Lo0 for
router 75a to source the rp-announce.
ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 32 group-list 10
ip pim send-rp-discovery Loopback0 scope 32
The question is, should'nt they use Lo 1 here?? As that is the interface
with the commomon IP for both the routers.
I guess that was the whole point of the excercise to make them redundant.
Any Multicast Guru, kindly Comment.
Thanks,
Mohit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:46 GMT-3