From: Brian Dennis (bdennis@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sat Dec 10 2005 - 19:38:16 GMT-3
In the newest version (Jan 2006 changes) of the IEATC-RS Class-on-Demand
we cover filtering with AutoRP in detail. In fact we cover this exact
same scenario along with other issues with filtering and AutoRP. I also
explained the issue with the scenario listed below in a previous e-mail.
HTH,
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Godswill Oletu
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 2:23 PM
To: Schulz, Dave; Cham
Cc: nobody@groupstudy.com; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: rp-announce-filter
It is possible that Cham's confusion is an extension from a section
delivered by one of the CCIE learning providers. I have heard that
before
and in that lecture, it was indicated that if the groups the cRP is
presenting to the MA are not exactly the same as what is configured on
the
MA for that particular cRP, the MA will ignore even matching group
requests
from that cRP, ie it must be 100% or nothing.
What Cham's lab helped to clear up is that, the filter list on the MA
represent the global set of groups that each cRP can represent, it is
then
up to the cRP (depending on the filter list configured on each cRP) to
request representaion for all the groups allowed by the MA for that cRP,
or
a subset of those groups.
-Godswill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>
To: "Cham " <chamandeep.gill@gmail.com>
Cc: <nobody@groupstudy.com>; "Cisco certification "
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: rp-announce-filter
> I understand what you are saying, Cham. I don't have the IE workbook,
but
> thinking like the router...I would assume that it works like you
mentioned
in
> the second paragraph. However, maybe one of the experts on GS can
comment.
> This is a great subject.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cham
> To: Schulz, Dave
> Cc: nobody@groupstudy.com; Cisco certification
> Sent: 12/10/2005 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: rp-announce-filter
>
> Dave
>
> Looking at the explanation given in the IE solutions guide, my
> understanding is that the RP has to request precisely what the MA is
> filtering the RP for. If they don't match the MA will not map the RP
> to any group It all or nothing??
>
> R8 is asking to be the RP for two groups 228 and 229, but the MA is
> saying I have you down only for 229. So, my understanding it that as
> this does not match precisely what the MA is mapping. R8 should not be
> the RP for anything. But instead what I see is that it is mapping only
> for the group they do agree on?? 229??
>
> I suppose I need a sanity check is this expected behavior??
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On 12/10/05, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cham -
> >
> > I believe that everything is working as it should with your R8
> RP....as it
> > is allowing the 229 group and filtering the 228 from this specific
RP.
> Are
> > you expecting a different result?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > To: Cisco certification
> > Sent: 12/10/2005 8:35 AM
> > Subject: RE: rp-announce-filter
> >
> > Hi group,
> >
> > Just looking for some clarification on the ip pim
rp-announce-filter
> > command.
> >
> > R8-----------R10-------------R9
> >
> > R8
> > ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 16 group-list 20
> > !
> > access-list 20 permit 228.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> > access-list 20 permit 229.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> >
> > R10
> > ip pim send-rp-discovery Loopback0 scope 16
> > ip pim rp-announce-filter rp-list R9_as_RP_only group-list 20
> > ip pim rp-announce-filter rp-list R8_as_RP_only group-list 30
> > !
> > !
> > ip access-list standard R8_as_RP_only
> > permit 150.1.8.8
> > ip access-list standard R9_as_RP_only
> > permit 150.1.9.9
> > access-list 20 permit 225.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> > access-list 20 permit 226.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> > access-list 30 permit 229.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> >
> > R9
> > ip pim send-rp-announce Loopback0 scope 16 group-list 10
> > !
> > access-list 10 permit 225.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> > access-list 10 permit 226.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
> >
> > I also have sparse-dense-mode on all ints and loopbacks. When R9 is
> > requesting to be the RP for groups in ACL 10 and R10 is permitting
R9
> > as the RP for the groups for ACL 20 this works fine as I
expected.
> >
> > My understanding is that if the RP is not requesting the same as
what
> > the MA is filtering the MA will discard all requests from the RP?
By
> > the "same" I mean nothing more - nothing less?? What I see is that
R8
> > is requesting to be the RP for groups in ACL 20 and the MA
permitting
> > R8 to be the RP for only some of the groups it is asking for?
> >
> > What I then see is the MA accepting this and just filtering the
> > 228.0.0.0/8 group as this is no permitted within the R10s ACL30 I
> > thought that this should not happen R10 should drop all requests
from
> > R8 as they do not match with what it is filtering?? I am trying to
> > understand IE lab 5 tasks 7.1.-7.6?
> >
> > *Dec 10 13:23:05.295: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from
> > 150.1.8.8, RP_cnt 1, ht 181
> > *Dec 10 13:23:05.295: Auto-RP(0): Filtered 228.0.0.0/8 for RP
> 150.1.8.8
> > *Dec 10 13:23:05.295: Auto-RP(0): Update (229.0.0.0/8,
RP:150.1.8.8),
> > PIMv2 v1
> > *Dec 10 13:23:05.295: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from
> > 150.1.8.8, RP_cnt 1, ht 181
> > *Dec 10 13:23:05.295: Auto-RP(0): Filtered 228.0.0.0/8 for RP
> 150.1.8.8
> > *Dec 10 13:23:05.295: Auto-RP(0): Update (229.0.0.0/8,
RP:150.1.8.8),
> > PIMv2 v1
> > R10#sh ip pim
> > *Dec 10 13:23:11.739: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from
> > 150.1.9.9, RP_cnt 1, ht 181
> > *Dec 10 13:23:11.739: Auto-RP(0): Update (225.0.0.0/8,
RP:150.1.9.9),
> > PIMv2 v1
> > *Dec 10 13:23:11.739: Auto-RP(0): Update (226.0.0.0/8,
RP:150.1.9.9),
> > PIMv2 v1
> > *Dec 10 13:23:11.739: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from
> > 150.1.9.9, RP_cnt 1, ht 181
> > *Dec 10 13:23:11.739: Auto-RP(0): Update (225.0.0.0/8,
RP:150.1.9.9),
> > PIMv2 v1
> > *Dec 10 13:23:11.739: Auto-RP(0): Update (226.0.0.0/8,
RP:150.1.9.9),
> > PIMv2 v1
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP(0): Build RP-Discovery packet
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP: Build mapping (225.0.0.0/8,
> > RP:150.1.9.9), PIMv2 v1,
> > R10#sh ip pim r
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP: Build mapping (226.0.0.0/8,
> > RP:150.1.9.9), PIMv2 v1.
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP: Build mapping (229.0.0.0/8,
> > RP:150.1.8.8), PIMv2 v1.
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP(0): Send RP-discovery packet on
> > GigabitEthernet4/0/0 (2 RP entries)
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP(0): Send RP-discovery packet on
> > FastEthernet0/0/0 (2 RP entries)
> > *Dec 10 13:23:12.463: Auto-RP: Send RP-discovery packet on
Loopback0
> > (2 RP entries)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cham
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:50 GMT-3