From: Nick Griffin (nick.jon.griffin@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2006 - 11:33:41 ART
What are you referring to below?
When you the message "*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 " this is the
RP-Group mapping being built and sent out the interface, both R2 and R3 were
sending announcements out at the same time, R2 was actually sending it
first, and then once R3 started sending it took precedence due to the higher
ip address, and then the MA started sending out announcements with R3 as the
RP, until the rp-announce command was removed from R3, upon which R2 was
then announced again via the MA.
I'll try to verify your BSR question as well in the lab.
On 12/15/06, Robert Watson <watson.robert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't the below prove that the lower rp address was preffered 2.2.2.2over
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 07:50:38 ART