From: Schulz, Dave (DSchulz@dpsciences.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 21:44:00 GMT-3
Here is an interesting dilemma....In the following white paper, is
states, " A prerequisite of Auto-RP is that all interf aces must be
configured in sparse-dense mode using the ip pim parse-dense mode
interface configuration command." (see page 2). Interesting! This
appears to contradict some of the statements that were already made
here. Also then, doesn't BSR mode require sparse-mode only?
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk828/technologies_white_paper09186a0080
0d6b63.shtml
Dave Schulz, CCDP, CCNP, CCSP
Project Manager / TAC Supervisor
Data Processing Sciences Corporation
10810 Kenwood Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Phone - (513) 791-7100 ext.7411
Fax - (513) 791-4676
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lewis (chrlewis) [mailto:chrlewis@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:05 PM
To: Schulz, Dave; terry.francona@gmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
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