From: jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com
Date: Mon Oct 11 2004 - 10:24:49 GMT-3
Hi,
Another difference between Auto-RP and static RP is whether you want to
configure every multicast router with the address of the RP for a given
range of groups (Not scalable) or centralise this configuration on the
candidate(s) RP.
224.0.1.39 is used by the candidate RP to advertise their candidacy to
the mapping agent, and 224.0.1.40 is used by the mapping agent to send
the discovery message. If you can make your routers join these groups,
(via static RP, autolistener or sparse-DENSE-mode), then the rest is
done automatically by the auto-RP process.
Cheers
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: 11 October 2004 13:02
To: Brian McGahan; samccie2004@yahoo.co.uk; Craig Dorry; Peter Ding;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Auto-RP vs. static RP
Hey Brian,
What do mean, "All you have to do is manually assign an RP that
can accept join messages for the 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40 groups."?
Thanks, Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
To: <samccie2004@yahoo.co.uk>; "Craig Dorry" <chdorry@yahoo.com>; "Peter
Ding" <pding@cisco.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: Auto-RP vs. static RP
> Sam,
>
> You can still run auto-rp in a sparse-only network without using
> the listener command. All you have to do is manually assign an RP
that
> can accept join messages for the 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40 groups.
>
> 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
> > samccie2004@yahoo.co.uk
> > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:54 AM
> > To: 'Craig Dorry'; 'Peter Ding'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: Auto-RP vs. static RP
> >
> > Another thing might be sparse mode Vs sparse-dense. If u are asked
to
> > only use sparse mode, I guess you will have to use static RP instead
> of
> > auto RP where initial discovery will not depend on dense mode.
> >
> > Then again, u can use listener command and bypass the need for dense
> > mode.
> >
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Craig Dorry
> > Sent: 10 October 2004 02:51
> > To: Peter Ding; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Auto-RP vs. static RP
> >
> > PD - As it has been mentioned before, it depends on a
> > number of things.
> >
> > The main difference between auto-rp and static RP is
> > where the configuration needs to be done to add a
> > multicast group (or scope of groups). So it all
> > depends on how much control you want to have as well
> > as the size of the network and how comfortable the
> > administrator is with pushing changes (ie ACL updates)
> > to the number of devices under management.
> >
> > I've seen auto-rp selected most typically for either
> > large networks or where the administrator wanted to
> > have full control over what groups were forwarded (ie
> > forcing users to "register" their multicast
> > application/group prior to the network supporting the
> > traffic.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > --- Peter Ding <pding@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since both auto-rp and static rp can be used in PIM
> > > SM mode, what are the
> > > criterias that will lead me to use one over other?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > PD
> > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:46 GMT-3