From: Leigh Harrison (ccileigh@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 08 2005 - 15:04:49 GMT-3
Erm, because it's an open standard and in general it is better to use
standards based protocols instead of proprietary ones in
implementation........
In all honesty, when I was fiddling with it, I found it easier to
configure bsr than auto-rp and it seems to settle down quicker and
propogate faster and was plenty stable enough for me.
Each to his own, but I generally prefer to use open standards on any
designs I do, or infrastructures that I'm configuring. Cisco tends to
bring out propriotry bits (I'm thinking igrp/eigrp/isl etc) and then
angle towards the open standards - think ospf/bgp/dot1q. I know that in
the vast majority of the labs that I was practicing with, there was more
ospf than eigrp. Also, there is no EIGRPv6 yet(!)
LH
Brian McGahan wrote:
> BSR is an open standard. In general it is better to use
>standards based protocols instead of proprietary ones in implementation.
>Also BSR uses hop by hop advertisements so you don't get the recursive
>error of having to join 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40 to be able to join a
>group.
>
>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: Schulz, Dave [mailto:DSchulz@dpsciences.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:59 AM
>>To: Leigh Harrison; John Matus
>>Cc: Brian McGahan; ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: RE: another dumb multicast question
>>
>>Leigh -
>>
>>Any specific reasons why you prefer BSR over Auto-RP? Just asking
>>because I am having some quirky issues with Auto-RP.
>>
>>
>>Dave Schulz
>>Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
>>
>>
>Of
>
>
>>Leigh Harrison
>>Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 7:44 AM
>>To: John Matus
>>Cc: Brian McGahan; ccielab@groupstudy.com; nobody@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: Re: another dumb multicast question
>>
>>Just to throw in my 2 cents,
>>
>>I tend to use BSR rather than auto RP when fiddling with sparde
>>mode.....
>>
>>LH
>>
>>
>>
>>John Matus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>ok, i see what you are saying.............so if a question was throw
>>>
>>>
>>out
>>
>>
>>>that said "use auto-rp for all groups that are not link-local...." or
>>>something to that extent, you could do this.....
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>John D. Matus
>>>Technical Support / PAS
>>>Fujitsu Consulting
>>>626-568-7716
>>>John.Matus@tokiom.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brian McGahan"
>>>
>>>
>>> <bmcgahan@interne
>>>
>>>
>>> tworkexpert.com>
>>>
>>>
>>To
>>
>>
>>> Sent by: "John Matus"
>>>
>>>
>>> nobody@groupstudy <John.Matus@tokiom.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> .com
>>>
>>>
>>cc
>>
>>
>>> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>
>>>
>>Subject
>>
>>
>>> 12/07/2005 05:40 RE: another dumb multicast
>>>
>>>
>>question
>>
>>
>>> PM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brian McGahan"
>>>
>>>
>>> <bmcgahan@interne
>>>
>>>
>>> tworkexpert.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No I'm saying to use that config in conjunction with
>>>
>>>
>>auto-rp.
>>
>>
>>>All your groups are auto-rp assigned with the exception of the
>>>candidate-rp and mapping agent groups, which are statically assigned.
>>>
>>>
>>>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: John Matus [mailto:John.Matus@tokiom.com]
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:36 PM
>>>>To: Brian McGahan
>>>>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>>Subject: RE: another dumb multicast question
>>>>
>>>>ok, i see what you are saying...............i should have said that
>>>>
>>>>
>i
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>was
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>thinking in terms of auto-rp, not static rp's.......... yes, i know
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>can
>>>>configure static rp to point to clients to the rp locations, but if
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>can
>>>>only use auto-rp, or bootstrap, i was thinking you had some magical
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>way to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>define those groups that i was not aware of... :) thanks dude!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>John D. Matus
>>>>Technical Support / PAS
>>>>Fujitsu Consulting
>>>>626-568-7716
>>>>John.Matus@tokiom.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Brian McGahan"
>>>> <bmcgahan@interne
>>>> tworkexpert.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>To
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "John Matus"
>>>> 12/07/2005 05:33 <John.Matus@tokiom.com>
>>>> PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>cc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Subject
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> RE: another dumb multicast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ok, so .39 and .40 only run in dense mode....
>>>>>so even tho you configure an interface in sparse mode, the global
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>command
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"forces" the interface to run in dense mode for .39 and .40 only
>>>>>
>>>>>
><?>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Yes. You can see this in the "show ip mroute" output.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>this begs the question............how would you configure this???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>i
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>don't
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>have a router in front of me so i'm thinking perhaps an "ip igmp"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>command
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of some-sort or else some kind for a static mroute perhaps???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>ip pim rp-address 1.2.3.4 1
>>>>!
>>>>access-list 1 permit 224.0.1.39
>>>>access-list 1 permit 224.0.1.40
>>>>
>>>> This is covered in the multicast sections of IEWB-RS
>>>>
>>>>
>3.0,
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I
>>>>think the 2.0 version as well.
>>>>
>>>>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: John Matus [mailto:John.Matus@tokiom.com]
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 7:04 PM
>>>>>To: Brian McGahan
>>>>>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>>>Subject: RE: another dumb multicast question
>>>>>
>>>>>ok, so .39 and .40 only run in dense mode....
>>>>>so even tho you configure an interface in sparse mode, the global
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>command
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"forces" the interface to run in dense mode for .39 and .40 only
>>>>>
>>>>>
><?>
>
>
>>>>><You can also run
>>>>>sparse mode only without auto-rp listener if you statically define
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>an
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>RP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to send joins for 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40.>
>>>>>
>>>>>this begs the question............how would you configure this???
>>>>>
>>>>>
>i
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>don't
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>have a router in front of me so i'm thinking perhaps an "ip igmp"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>command
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of some-sort or else some kind for a static mroute perhaps???
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>John D. Matus
>>>>>Technical Support / PAS
>>>>>Fujitsu Consulting
>>>>>626-568-7716
>>>>>John.Matus@tokiom.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brian McGahan"
>>>>> <bmcgahan@interne
>>>>> tworkexpert.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>To
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "John Matus"
>>>>> 12/07/2005 04:57 <John.Matus@tokiom.com>,
>>>>> PM <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>cc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Subject
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> RE: another dumb multicast
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does run in dense mode, that's what auto-rp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>listener
>
>
>>>>>accomplishes. Auto-RP listener is essentially sparse-dense mode,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>but
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>you're only dense for 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40. You can also run
>>>>>sparse mode only without auto-rp listener if you statically define
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>an
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>RP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to send joins for 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John Matus
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 6:39 PM
>>>>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>>>Subject: another dumb multicast question
>>>>>
>>>>>just trying to get my information correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>let's say you are running auto-rp and you have mapping agents that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>not
>>>>>directly connected to the c-rp...........and you're running in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>sparse
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>mode.
>>>>>will "ip pim auto-rp-listener overcome the issue for the mapping
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>agent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>like
>>>>>it does for a client/router, or does 224.0.1.39 have to run in
>>>>>dense-mode
>>>>>only?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>John D. Matus
>>>>>Technical Support / PAS
>>>>>Fujitsu Consulting
>>>>>626-568-7716
>>>>>John.Matus@tokiom.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>=======================================================================
>>=
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>================================
>>>>> This e-mail is intended solely for the individual to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>whom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>is
>>>>>addressed. The information contained in this transmission
>>>>>contains
>>>>>confidential and/or proprietary information or is otherwise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>privileged.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If
>>>>>the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please be
>>>>>advised
>>>>>that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>transmission
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>is
>>>>>strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>error,
>
>
>>>>>please
>>>>>notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>this
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>copy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>from your system. Thank you for your
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>cooperation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>=======================================================================
>>=
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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 may be found at:
>>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:50 GMT-3