From: Mike O (mikeeo@msn.com)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2006 - 11:51:25 ART
Brian,
thanks for the reply, but doesn't that violate the rules by statically
defining an RP?
>From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
>To: "Mike O" <mikeeo@msn.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: Auto-RP with sparse-mode.
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:49:54 -0400
>
>Mike,
>
> You can also define a default RP for the auto-rp groups like:
>
>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
>
>
>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
> > Mike O
> > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:37 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Auto-RP with sparse-mode.
> >
> > Hey guys I know this has been hashed out many times, but I'm still
> > confused.
> >
> > If the question states I must use spare-mode and no static RPs (aka
>autp-
> > rp)
> > must I use ip pim autorp listener for it to work? or will that violate
>the
> > rules because autorp listener sends pim traffic in a dense mode
>fashion?
> >
> > I labbed this up and couldn't get it to work without putting autorp
> > listener
> > on ever router in the path.
> >
> > Anyh thoughts?
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:34 ART