From: Robert Watson (watson.robert@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2006 - 11:09:16 ART
Doesn't the below prove that the lower rp address was preffered 2.2.2.2 over
3.3.3.3 in auto-rp?
Also with BSR the default priority is 0 so regardless of the care you take
in rp election if someone takes one on with default values it is preferred?
________________________________
From: Nick Griffin [mailto:nick.jon.griffin@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:31 PM
To: Bob Watson
Cc: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Multicast RP elections methods not clear in cco
Here's some Auto RP verifications to convince myself ?!?
R1#
*Dec 15 04:24:26.726: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from 3.3.3.3, RP_cnt
1, ht 31 <---- Received 3.3.3.3
*Dec 15 04:24:26.726: Auto-RP(0): Update (224.0.0.0/4, RP:3.3.3.3), PIMv2 v1
*Dec 15 04:24:26.834: Auto-RP(0): Build RP-Discovery packet
*Dec 15 04:24: 26.834: Auto-RP: Build mapping (224.0.0.0/4, RP:3.3.3.3),
PIMv2 v1, <------ Sent 3.3.3.3
*Dec 15 04:24:26.834: Auto-RP(0): Send RP-discovery packet on
GigabitEthernet0/0 (1 RP entries)
*Dec 15 04:24:29.514: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from 2.2.2.2, RP_cnt
1, ht 31 <------ Received 2.2.2.2 but not sent
*Dec 15 04:24:29.514: Auto-RP(0): Update ( 224.0.0.0/4, RP:2.2.2.2), PIMv2
v1
*Dec 15 04:24:29.514: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from 2.2.2.2, RP_cnt
1, ht 31
*Dec 15 04:24: 29.514: Auto-RP(0): Update (224.0.0.0/4, RP:2.2.2.2), PIMv2
v1
Removed rp announce from R3
*Dec 15 04:25:28.566: Auto-RP(0): Received RP-announce, from 2.2.2.2, RP_cnt
1, ht 31
*Dec 15 04:25:28.566: Auto-RP(0): Update (224.0.0.0/4, RP:2.2.2.2), PIMv2 v1
*Dec 15 04:25:37.834: Auto-RP(0): Build RP-Discovery packet
*Dec 15 04:25:37.834: Auto-RP: Build mapping (224.0.0.0/4, RP:2.2.2.2),
PIMv2 v1, <--- Now building mapping for R2
On 12/14/06, Nick Griffin <nick.jon.griffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds valid
Lower priority value in BSR is preferred, I believe highest Loopback
Address is preferred for Auto RP, you can have more than one, highest IP
wins.
On 12/14/06, Bob Watson <watson.robert@gmail.com> wrote:
Have a question say you have 2 rp's and you wish to do
preferential
treatment of 1 over the other ,
you can do it a couple different ways
3 options I know of
1 auto rp configured for the best one and then static rp for
second best on
all the mcast routers
2 static rp configured with override keyword for the best
one and autorp for
second best ? is this valid
3 bsr configuration with multiple rp's and assign various
priority levels to
which rp should be prefered
the priority keyword in cco it doesnt declare if the higher
the number the
better or vice versa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 07:50:38 ART