From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Oct 21 2005 - 11:53:12 GMT-3
> Is this the consensus of how it should be working? Am I missing
anything
> here? Doesn't this configuration have the same effect as using the
> priority option in the BSR configuration to influence which RP gest to
be
> the RP for a group?
This is how it should be working, but it's not the same as the
priority option. With the priority option you're telling the BSR to
prefer candidate RP X over RP Y, but if X is unavailable use Y. With
the announce filter you're saying prefer X over Y because Y is filtered
out. If X is down Y still can't be used because you filtered it out.
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
> Chris Lewis
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: ip pim rp-announce-filter again
>
> Hi,
>
> I had difficulty following all the views expressed on this thread, so
> labbed it up to see if I could get what I thought was the desired
> behavior. The desired behavior being could I use the ip pim
rp-announce-
> filter by itself to influence which rp is selected for which groups.
>
> This is my topology
>
> R3 R2 R4
> \ | /
> R1
> |
> R6
>
> unicast and pim are setup with appropriate reachability and neighbor
> relationships.
>
> R2 and R4 have loopbacks 192.168.2.2 and 192.168.4.4 respectively and
are
> setup to be candidate RPs for the group 225.1.1.1 only
>
> R3 is the mapping agent and I test my results by looking at the sho ip
pim
> rp mapp output on R6
>
> With no filters in place, R6 shows the following:
>
> Router6#sho ip pim rp mapp
> PIM Group-to-RP Mappings
> Group(s) 225.1.1.1/32
> RP 192.168.4.4 (?), v2v1
> Info source: 192.168.3.3 (?), elected via Auto-RP
> Uptime: 00:08:59, expires: 00:02:54
> Router6#
>
> This is as expected, as the highest IP address becomes the RP for the
> group. If I want to change the RP to be R2 instead without changing
the
> configuration of R2 or R4, I place the following on R3.
>
> access-list 1 permit 192.168.4.4
> access-list 2 deny 225.1.1.1
> access-list 2 permit any
> !
> ip pim rp-announce-filter rp 1 group 2
>
> Then clear the rp mappings on R6 and see the following:
>
> Router6#sho ip pim rp mapp
> PIM Group-to-RP Mappings
> Group(s) 225.1.1.1/32
> RP 192.168.2.2 (?), v2v1
> Info source: 192.168.3.3 (?), elected via Auto-RP
> Uptime: 00:00:58, expires: 00:02:00
> Router6#
>
> This shows that I have been able to use the rp-announce-filter on the
> mapping agent to deny an RP for a group and change the RP selected for
> that group.
>
> When I first configured this as the documentation suggests, I was not
> using deny statements in the access lists and could not influence RP
> selection.
>
> Is this the consensus of how it should be working? Am I missing
anything
> here? Doesn't this configuration have the same effect as using the
> priority option in the BSR configuration to influence which RP gest to
be
> the RP for a group?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:52 GMT-3