From: Chacko, Raj (RChacko@DRAFTNET.com)
Date: Fri Nov 18 2005 - 22:41:05 GMT-3
Dick, like Chris mentioned, this is a cisco thing. You enable pim on an
interface, (doesn't matter if you have sparse/dense/sparse-dense mode),(or
if you are going to run Auto-RP or BSR or static RP configurations) You are
going to get this group listed because the 'Cisco' router joins this
multicast group by default... just the CISCO thing..
HTH
Raj
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Crittenden
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 6:53 PM
To: Chris Lewis
Cc: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: pimv2 standards based approach
Thank you for the quick response Chris, but I am looking at a slightly
different situation. There are two ways to configure an rp automatically.
One is Cisco' autorp and another is standards base BSR. When using Cisco's
autorp the rp candidate communicates with the mapping agent via 224.0.1.39
and the mapping agent communicates with all other multicast routers via
224.0.1.40. When using the standards based BSR addresses 224.0.1.39 and
224.0.1.40 are not used. Instead Bsr uses the pimv2 message to communicate
this same information. what is confusing me is the 224.0.1.39 address does
not appear in the ip mrouting table, but the address 224.0.1.40 still does.
I can not figure out why this is so as it is not supposed to be there. Any
suggestions on my understanding would be greatly appreciated.
TIA
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lewis" <chrlewiscsco@yahoo.com>
To: "Dick Crittenden" <dickc@gci.net>; "Cisco certification"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: pimv2 standards based approach
> enabling pim on an interface generates an IGMP join for that group, it
> does not matter whether you use sparse or dense mode.
>
> Chris
>
> Dick Crittenden <dickc@gci.net> wrote:
> Hi all, have noticed when configuring BSR multicast that the reserved
> multicast address 224.0.1.40 is still in the mrouting table. I was under
> the impression that with BSR the reserved addresses 224.0.1.39 and
> 224.0.1.40 were not used and that these address were replaced by
> leveraging the pimv2 messages.
> If anyone would be kind enough to clear this up for me I would appreciate
> it.
>
> TIA
> Dick
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3