From: Scott King (scking@mac.com)
Date: Fri Nov 11 2005 - 04:04:36 GMT-3
I could have sworn I've seen you in festive boots. Must have been some
other EIEIO....
Scott "The Other Scott" King
On Nov 10, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
> Just not my style. Picks up the wrong kind of people at bars. ;)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Lissitz (alissitz)
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:34 PM
> To: swm@emanon.com; jon; ccielab@groupstudy.com; comserv@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Auto-RP with MSDP and Anycast
>
> What's wrong with tights or festive boots? I was thinking the cape was
> perhaps a bit too much ;-)
>
> Thanks for the clarification!!!
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:31 PM
> To: Andrew Lissitz (alissitz); 'jon'; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
> comserv@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Auto-RP with MSDP and Anycast
>
> Do I get a cape? (No tights or festive boots though)
>
> If the received direction of multicast traffic differs from the unicast
> reverse path, and you don't feel like doing a bunch of "ip mroute"
> commands, then yes MBGP is your friend.
>
> I would think that it would be a fair topic for SP exam, but a bit
> beyond
> the scope of the R&S exam.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Lissitz (alissitz)
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:28 PM
> To: swm@emanon.com; jon; ccielab@groupstudy.com; comserv@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Auto-RP with MSDP and Anycast
>
> So super Scott, if we are asked to configure this between two routers
> without an IGP between them ... (this statement also assumes different
> AS#s), is MPBGP our only way to propagate RPF info?
>
> Something like this could easily be done on the SP lab...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:23 PM
> To: 'jon'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: Andrew Lissitz (alissitz); comserv@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Auto-RP with MSDP and Anycast
>
> So we want to explore the possibility of Anycast gone bad? :)
>
> In the lab environment, there's really not a lot that can go bad. As
> long
> as you have reachability and configure your different addresses
> correctly,
> things will work fairly nicely.
>
> In larger scale environments, the failures can occur based on
> difficulties
> with the RPF checking versus the received paths for the multicast
> traffic.
> And in larger scale environments we use MBGP carrrying the multicast
> address
> family to assist in solving this problem for passing RPF information.
> (Note
> to SP CCIE list, this MAY pertain to you!)
>
> You can make things (manually) more complex by adding different
> filtering
> techniques into the MSDP setup for which things will go where, but
> unlikely
> to really run into this with the lab environment. If you're running
> it with
> AutoRP or BSR, you'll have other difficulties with the default
> behavior of a
> BSR or MA listing one RP per group max.
> Typically I've seen this implemented with static RP assignments, but I
> guess
> as long as everyone knows the "shared IP" it really doesn't matter
> "which
> one" wins. *shrug*
>
> But other than that, it's really just a cool way of distributing the
> load
> and giving yourself some redundancy and resiliency along the way as
> well!
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of jon
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 4:54 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Auto-RP with MSDP and Anycast
>
> I was messing around today with the following....
>
> Two routers in a network of about 7 or 8.
> All routers running pim sparse-dense.
> I setup each of the two as both Auto-RP announcers and mapping agents,
> using
> an Anycast loopback (advertised into OSPF).
> I setup MSDP between them and messed with costs in the network to
> ensure
> that my source registered with one RP, and the two client listeners
> registered with one RP each.
> Apart from some oddities around caching, it all worked lovely -
> however, I
> having trouble following through the possibilities of it all.
> I didn't limit the scope of the AutoRP, but due to the anycast IP both
> ignore the other (except through the MSDP which uses different IPs on
> the
> routers).
> I guess what I'm interested in exploring is how this could go wrong,
> as it
> seems a nice neat way to deal with variable multicast situations - with
> source and listeners always registering with the nearest RP. The
> infrastructure seemed to deal very well with RP failure, but went
> horribly
> wrong when MSDP was disrupted.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:06 GMT-3