From: Nick Griffin (nick.jon.griffin@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2006 - 11:53:42 ART
Here's the confirmation of BSR priority 0 taking precedence:
Announcements sent for Both R2 and R3
===============================================================================================================================
*Dec 15 14:37:45.135: PIM-BSR(0): Bootstrap message for 1.1.1.1 originated
*Dec 15 14:37:47.951: PIM-BSR(0): RP 3.3.3.3, 1 Group Prefixes, Priority 0,
Holdtime 210
*Dec 15 14:38:37.555: PIM-BSR(0): RP 2.2.2.2, 1 Group Prefixes, Priority 2,
Holdtime 210
Configure IGMP join for 239.1.1.1 on R1, sends register to the 3.3.3.3 RP
configured WITHOUT priority default is 0
===============================================================================================================================
*Dec 15 14:39:38.423: MRT(0): Set 'L' flag for (*, 239.1.1.1)
*Dec 15 14:39:38.423: MRT(0): Create (*,239.1.1.1), RPF /0.0.0.0
*Dec 15 14:39:38.423: MRT(0): WAVL Insert interface: Loopback1 in (* ,
239.1.1.1) Successful
*Dec 15 14:39:38.423: MRT(0): set min mtu for (3.3.3.3, 239.1.1.1) 0->18010
*Dec 15 14:39:38.423: MRT(0): Set the C-flag for (*, 239.1.1.1)
*Dec 15 14:39:38.427: MRT(0): Add Loopback1/239.1.1.1 to the olist of (*,
239.1.1.1), Forward state - MAC not built
*Dec 15 14:39:38.427: MRT(0): Update Loopback1/239.1.1.1 in the olist of (*,
239.1.1.1), Forward state - MAC not built
Removed rp-candidate from R3, BSR router now only sending 2.2.2.2 mappings
===============================================================================================================================
*Dec 15 14:47:00.375: PIM-BSR(0): RP 2.2.2.2, 1 Group Prefixes, Priority 2,
Holdtime 210
R1(config-if)#do sh ip pim rp map
PIM Group-to-RP Mappings
This system is the Bootstrap Router (v2)
Group(s) 224.0.0.0/4
RP 3.3.3.3 (?), v2
Info source: 192.168.100.3 (?), via bootstrap, priority 0, holdtime 210
Uptime: 00:11:53, expires: 00:00:34
<---------------------------------R3 mapping expires in 34 secs
RP 2.2.2.2 (?), v2
Info source: 192.168.100.2 (?), via bootstrap, priority 2, holdtime 210
Uptime: 00:02:40, expires: 00:02:43
Initiate another IGMP join for 239.1.1.1 from R1, register send to RP
2.2.2.2
===============================================================================================================================
R1(config-if)#
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): Set 'L' flag for (*, 239.1.1.1)
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): Create (*,239.1.1.1), RPF /0.0.0.0
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): WAVL Insert interface: Loopback1 in (* ,
239.1.1.1) Successful
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): set min mtu for (2.2.2.2, 239.1.1.1) 0->18010
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): Set the C-flag for (*, 239.1.1.1)
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): Add Loopback1/239.1.1.1 to the olist of (*,
239.1.1.1), Forward state - MAC not built
*Dec 15 14:48:29.047: MRT(0): Update Loopback1/239.1.1.1 in the olist of (*,
239.1.1.1), Forward state - MAC not built
On 12/15/06, Nick Griffin <nick.jon.griffin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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