From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 17:27:12 GMT-3
Only 12.3GD will be used I thought...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Ralph
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:27 PM
To: chrlewis@cisco.com
Cc: DSchulz@dpsciences.com; terry.francona@gmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: RE: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
It seems like the ip pim dm-fallback is a 12.3T feature, this probably will
not be in the Lab until Jan 06. For now, using pim sparse-mode with auto-rp
listener should do it, right??
Ralph.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Chris Lewis \(chrlewis\)" <chrlewis@cisco.com>
To: "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>, <terry.francona@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:04:52 -0400
Subject: RE: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
Auto-RP does not mean sparse-dense, you can use sparse-mode and autorp
listener.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Schulz, Dave
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:58 PM
To: terry.francona@gmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
Terry -
Sorry for the confusion on the first part....you are correct. I meant to
say that you need the sparse in their (either spare or sparse-dense).
Now, I believe that the BSR (IETF standard) requires sparse mode only.
Correct?
Here is the link for the dm-fallback....
http://cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guid
e09186a00801d1e18.html
Dave Schulz,
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <mailto:dschulz@dpsciences.com%20>
________________________________
From: Anthony Sequeira [mailto:terry.francona@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 2:49 PM
To: Schulz, Dave
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
Wow - this is an intersting post to me.
First of all - we can use Auto-RP and sparse-mode together. We are not
required to use sparse-dense just because we are using Auto-RP. I just
wanted to make that clear before I got myself even more confused.....
Now - if we are told we have to use sparse-dense - and we are told to NEVER
go into dense mode.......this is interesting.....I am thinking there are
several options.....but.......I have never heard of the command "no ip pim
dm-fallback" you mention here. Can you send me a link to that command?
On 9/12/05, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
If there is a requirement that requires you to use Auto-RP, which means
using sparse-dense mode. And, another requirement to insure that you never
go into dense mode.....is it more correct to:
1. Use the command - "no ip pim dm-fallback"
Or,
2. Use the "sink RP" configuration that cisco details in the
following white-paper.....
http://cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk828/technologies_white_paper09186a00800d6b
63.shtml
Thoughts?
Dave Schulz
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com <mailto:dschulz@dpsciences.com >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3