From: CCIEin2006 (ciscocciein2006@gmail.com)
Date: Wed May 17 2006 - 11:50:21 ART
I believe static mroutes are a special case. I guess this falls under the
"ask the proctor" category.
On 5/17/06, Kulcsar Andras Benjamin <Kulcsar.Andras@kfki-lnx.hu> wrote:
>
> I also had a problem with this task. I had to use static mroute to resolve
> the RPF check, but the general requierement said not to use any static
> routes unless permitted.
> Was this some kind of exception?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Brian McGahan
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: Tony Paterra; Cisco certification
> Subject: RE: IEWB Vol. 1 Lab 1 Multicast RPF checks against the RP...
>
>
> > interface? If R2 is the mapping agent, does it matter that it can't
> > pass around the multicast address for cisco-rp-discovery?
>
> Yes it does matter. Since the candidate RP sends its announcements
> as a multicast to the mapping agent these must pass RPF as they are
> forwarded. Likewise the mapping agents advertisements to the rest of the
> PIM neighbors are multicast and must also pass RPF. An alternative would
be
> to use BSR because it uses a combination of unicast and hop-by-hop
> communication.
>
>
> 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
> > Tony Paterra
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 11:10 PM
> > To: Cisco certification
> > Subject: IEWB Vol. 1 Lab 1 Multicast RPF checks against the RP...
> >
> > I was going through the multicast portion of the first lab and (being
> > a little fresh to mcast) have noticed some unexpected behaviors. R3
> > is supposed to announce it's loopback as the RP for all multicast
> > groups and R2 is supposed to announce it's loopback as the mapping
> > agent. I understand these pieces, the real question... Is that I'm
> > running debugs and seeing RPF check failures on R5 for (150.1.2.2,
> > 224.0.1.40) because of the unicast routing table.
> >
> > Is this the way this is supposed to operate? Are there any other ways
> > around this outside of static mroutes or enabling multicast on the
> > necessary interfaces to reach R5 on the proper (ethernet0/0)
> > interface? If R2 is the mapping agent, does it matter that it can't
> > pass around the multicast address for cisco-rp-discovery?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > --
> > Tony Paterra
> > apaterra@gmail.com
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:21 ART