From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Tue Sep 13 2005 - 01:03:46 GMT-3
They'd have a LOT of docs to clean up! I believe that's why they just come
out with new ones! Keeps things busy!
I think I would not want to be the guy in charge of updating docs! You'd be
way behind about every 5 minutes!
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Schulz, Dave
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:03 PM
To: swm@emanon.com; Chris Lewis (chrlewis); terry.francona@gmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
Thanks, Scott. Apparently, Cisco doesn't do a clean up on outdated
documents.
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: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:03 PM
To: Schulz, Dave; 'Chris Lewis (chrlewis)'; terry.francona@gmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
It may also be that the whitepaper was written before the listener command
came out. Or simply that the people who wrote the whitepaper weren't aware
of it. *shrug*
While all the references were 12.2, they may be early stuff. The "ip pim
autorp listener" command didn't come in until 12.2(7)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Schulz, Dave
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 8:44 PM
To: Chris Lewis (chrlewis); terry.francona@gmail.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Multicast - No ip pim dm-fallback vs. Sink RP
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
0d6b
63.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