From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Fri Nov 11 2005 - 09:09:57 GMT-3
Only with a sword in hand. ;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott King [mailto:scking@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:05 AM
To: Scott Morris
Cc: 'jon'; comserv@groupstudy.com; 'Andrew Lissitz (alissitz)';
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Auto-RP with MSDP and Anycast
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