From: Herbert Maosa (asawilunda@googlemail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 11:14:37 ART
I wouldnt go with the second option for the reason that R7 would be the RP
for 239.0.0.0/8 while it is available on the network. Should it be
unreachable for some reason, R5 would then be the RP since it is advertising
the same group. Now I dont know if this situation is permitted by your
scenario.
Herbert.
On 10/30/07, Toh Soon, Lim <tohsoon28@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Group,
>
> I have the following Auto-RP scenario:
>
> R7
> --
> 1. C-RP for 239.0.0.0/8
> 2. RP address 200.0.0.7
>
> R5
> --
> 1. Mapping agent
> 2. C-RP for all groups except 239.0.0.0/8
> 3. RP address 200.0.0.5
>
> I guess one way of configuring this is, we define an ACL on R5 that
> matches
> groups 224 until 238 (summarizing whatever we can) and let R5 announce
> this
> group-list.
>
> Another way I'm thinking of is, since R7's IP address is higher than R5's,
> I
> will configure R5 to announce, by default, all groups. When R5 and R7
> contend for group 239.0.0.0/8, R7 will win. R5 will be RP for the rest of
> the groups. In the end, this solution meets the task requirement and does
> not violate any rules but is it acceptable?
>
> Please share if you have other methods.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> B.Rgds,
> Lim TS
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:19 ART