From: Yasser Aly (blackyeyes00@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 19:06:06 GMT-3
Hola,
How about repeating what you said in English for poor illiterate who
doesn't know Spanish like me.
I can assure you, you will have hard time reading any of my e-mails in
Arabic :)
Yasser
>From: Richard Dumoulin <richard.dumoulin@vanco.es>
>Reply-To: Richard Dumoulin <richard.dumoulin@vanco.es>
>To: David Hurtado <dei2viccie@hotmail.com>
>CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Auto-RP vs BSR
>Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:57:53 +0100
>
>Auto-RP
>
>R1 manda sus RP "annoucements" al "mapping agent" R3
con IP destino
>224.0.1.39 --> luego hay que verificar en R3 si hay rpf failures.
>
>R3 manda sus RP "discoveries" a todos los PIM routers con IP
destino
>224.0.1.40 --> verificar en R1 si hay rpf failure
>
>Este trafico se recibe en "PIM dense mode" --> luego hay
que verificar los
>rpf failures
>
>BSR (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2362.html
><http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2362.html>; )
>
>El BSR candidate R3 manda sus mensajes BSR (forma parte de PIM) hacia la
IP
>destino 224.0.0.13 (PIM) "hop by hop" .
>
>El RP candidate manda sus mensajes al BSR elegido hacia la IP unicast
del
>BSR.
>
>Este trafico es znicamente trafico PIM --> aqum los mensajes son hop
by hop
>luego no hay problema de rpf failure
>
>
>Creo que he contestado a tu pregunta: "La regla de RPF se aplica
tanto a BSR
>como a Auto-RP y si BSR funciona sin
>necesidad de poner "ip mroute", ?por qui no va a funcionar
Auto-RP?"
>
>Aqum va la pagina Multicast de Cisco,
>
>http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/browse/psp_view.pl?p=Technologies:Multi
>cast&viewall=true
><http://www.cisco.com/cgi-bin/Support/browse/psp_view.pl?p=Technologies:Mult
>icast&viewall=true>
>
>--Richard
>
>
>Como ves no funcionan de la misma manera
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Hurtado [mailto:dei2viccie@hotmail.com
><mailto:dei2viccie@hotmail.com> ]
>Sent: sabado, 17 de abril de 2004 21:57
>To: Richard Dumoulin
>Subject: RE: Auto-RP vs BSR
>
>
>Hola Richard,
>
>Acabo de leer tu correo y ya he terminado el lab (es que lo he hecho por
>internet, ya sabes, rack rental), pero yo no creo que esa sea la razsn.
>Comprobi la tabla de rutas para ver si se cumplma el RPF y creo que
estaba
>bien (ahora estoy dudando)
>
>La regla de RPF se aplica tanto a BSR como a Auto-RP y si BSR funciona
sin
>necesidad de poner "ip mroute", ?por qui no va a funcionar
Auto-RP?
>
>?Sabes de algzn enlace donde expliquen o comparen Auto-RP y BSR?
>
>Tampoco me queda claro por qui el RP Mapping Agent tiene que ser el hub
en
>una topologma hub-and-spoke, quizas sea por el split-horizon.
>
>Muchas gracias por la ayuda y el interis Richard
>
>
> >From: Richard Dumoulin <richard.dumoulin@vanco.es>
> >To: David Hurtado <dei2viccie@hotmail.com>
> >Subject: RE: Auto-RP vs BSR
> >Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:18:43 +0100
> >
> >Funcions ?
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Richard Dumoulin
> >Sent: sabado, 17 de abril de 2004 20:20
> >To: 'David Hurtado'; '=SMTP:ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> >Subject: RE: Auto-RP vs BSR
> >
> >
> >David,
> >Try debug ip mpacket on R1, you should be seeing rpf check
failures.
> >Then depending on what rpf check is failing you will probably have
to
> >configure an ip mroute command on R1. I guess you will need
something
> >like "ip mroute R3_ip_address 255.255.255.255 toward R2".
> >
> >
> >--Richard
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David Hurtado [mailto:dei2viccie@hotmail.com
><mailto:dei2viccie@hotmail.com> ]
> >Sent: sabado, 17 de abril de 2004 17:00
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Auto-RP vs BSR
> >
> >
> >Hello everybody,
> >
> >I have been configuring Auto-RP and BSR in the following topology:
> >
> >(R1)---FR----s1(R2)s0----FR----(R3)
> >
> >I wanted R1 to be the RP for 224.0.0.0/5 and R2 to be the RP for
> >232.0.0.0/5. There is no split horizon limitation in this topology
> >because R2 uses 2 different interfaces.
> >
> >When configuring BSR:
> >
> >- R3: BSR candidate
> >- R2, R1: RP candidates
> >
> >Everything worked great with BSR.
> >
> >
> >When configuring Auto-RP:
> >
> >- R3: RP Mapping Agent
> >- R2, R1: RP candidates
> >
> >Only R2 could become RP. R1's announcement didn't come to R3.
> >
> >I had to create a tunnel between R1 and R3 to take the R1's
> >announcements
> >to
> >
> >R3 and then everything worked.
> >
> >
> >Now i would like to show you my deductions in order to be
corrected:
> >
> >BSR in a NBMA network allows communication between BSR and RP
candidate
> >without sharing the same Layer 2 segment.
> >
> >BSR in a NBMA network doesn't allow communication between RP
Mapping
> >Agent and RP candidate without sharing the same Layer 2 segment.
> >
> >But then why a tunnel will solve this requirement?
> >
> >I would like to read more about this topic. Could somebody tell me
> >about a good link that explains and compares Auto-RP and BSR?
> >
> >Thanks a lot for your help
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Reparaciones, servicios a domicilio, empresas, profesionales...
Todo en
> >la guma telefsnica de QDQ. http://qdq.msn.es/msn.cfm
><http://qdq.msn.es/msn.cfm>;
> >
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> >Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
from:
> >http://shop.groupstudy.com <http://shop.groupstudy.com>;
> >
> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
><http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html>;
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Horsscopo, tarot, numerologma... Escucha lo que te dicen los astros.
>http://astrocentro.msn.es/ <http://astrocentro.msn.es/>;
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:49 GMT-3