From: Schulz, Dave (DSchulz@dpsciences.com)
Date: Fri Mar 24 2006 - 17:53:45 GMT-3
Thanks for the response, Brent. I believe that what you say is correct.
However, I am trying to determine if there is truly a difference between
preventing dense mode (dm-fallback), and, prevent the formation of the
SPT (no ip pim spt-threshold infinity). Are we really effectively doing
the same thing, but in a different way? Hmmmmm.
Dave Schulz,
Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Foster [mailto:jbrentfoster@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:50 PM
To: Schulz, Dave; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: ip pim spt-threshold
Dave,
Not the same thing. "no ip pim dm-fallback" simply
prevents a router that has been configured with
sparse-dense-mode from ever going to dense mode (i.e.
flood & prune behavior).
This has no effect on the sparse-mode SPT process, at
least that is my understanding.
--- "Schulz, Dave" <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
> Group -
>
> When using the spt-threshold command....the
> "infinity" option keeps the
> leaf router from building a shortest path tree to
> the source. So, could
> the same thing be also accomplished with the "no ip
> pim dm-fallback"
> option, which would prevent the specific group or
> client on the leaf
> router from running in dense mode and continuing to
> pull from the RP?
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
> <mailto:dschulz@dpsciences.com >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:40 GMT-3