From: Andy (trung@vnsystem.net)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 10:59:28 GMT-3
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your response soon.
Ok, i agree with you about matching between groups annouced by MA & RP.
How about the acl ? i don't realize what you intend to say ?
I were wondering which one should we use in the lab ?
i always think that the most precise way should be prefered.
Andy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
To: "'Andy'" <trung@vnsystem.net>; "'Cisco certification'"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: Multicast / the multicast group (IEWB lab8)
> Andy,
>
> There are a couple things you should know about this config:
>
> 1. The groups announced by the rp must be the same as the groups
> allowed by the MA. So, yes, you need the filter on the rp.
>
> 2. You can't use a deny entry in the acl's.
>
> 3. The interval parameter isn't needed in this scenario.
>
> HTH, Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Andy
> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 5:23 AM
> To: Cisco certification
> Subject: Multicast / the multicast group (IEWB lab8)
>
> Hi,
> i'm doing task 7.3 -7.6 lab 8 in IEWB.
> This states that R1 should anounce its loopback as a candidate RP via
> Auto-rp
> and R3 should map all multicast groups with event numbered first octet to
> R1.
>
> Ok, the question is clear enough and this is my answer:
>
> R1:
> !
> interface Loopback0
> ip pim sparse-dense-mode
> !
> ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 16
>
>
> R3:
> interface Loopback0
> ip pim sparse-dense-mode
> !
> ip pim send-rp-discovery Loopback0 scope 16
> !
> ip pim rp-announce-filter rp-list R1_RP group-list R1_GROUPS
> !
> ip access-list standard R1_GROUPS
> permit 224.0.0.0 14.255.255.255
> !
> ip access-list standard R1_RP
> permit 150.1.1.1
> !
>
>
> And when looking at solution guide, i see this:
>
>
>
> R3
>
> !
>
> interface Loopback0
> ip pim sparse-dense-mode
> !
> ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 16 group-list 1 interval 5
> !
> access-list 1 permit 0.0.0.0 254.255.255.255
>
>
>
> R3:
> interface Loopback0
> ip pim sparse-dense-mode
> !
> ip pim send-rp-discovery Loopback0 scope 16
> !
> ip pim rp-announce-filter rp-list R1_RP group-list R1_GROUPS
> !
> ip access-list standard R1_GROUPS
> permit 0.0.0.0 254.255.255.255
> ip access-list standard R1_RP
> permit 150.1.1.1
>
>
> Ok, two things i want to clarify here are:
>
> 1- The access list that match multicast group.
>
> permit 0.0.0.0 254.255.255.255 from SG
> vs
>
> permit 224.0.0.0 14.255.255.255 is mine.
>
>
>
> I don't have a rack to test at the moment but i believe the two of them
> will
> work fine. However, which one do you think will be prefered ? The acl that
> match exactly the multicast score is "better", isn't it ?
>
>
>
> 2- Do we have to apply R1_Group to both RP in send-rp-annouce and MA in
> rp-annouce-filter command ? or it's only needed to configure
> rp-annouce-filter
> on the mapping agent ? And there's no word about changing annouce
> interval,
> why put interval 5 in there ?
>
>
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
>
>
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:00:32 GMT-3