From: Herbert Maosa (asawilunda@googlemail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 13 2008 - 18:28:28 ARST
If you are asked to prevent dense mode fall back, I would configure the
interfaces in sparse-dense mode, then configure no ip pim dm-fallback. If I
am required to use sparse mode only by the task, then I would configure a
static sink RP for all multicast groups that should operate in sparse mode
on all routers. Sink RPs are just bogus RPs of last resort, which you
configure statically to prevent sparse groups falling back to dense mode
when the actual RP is lost. Because Auto-RP has precedence over static RP,
these do not intefere with normal operation when the RP is available.
Herbert.
On Feb 11, 2008 11:11 PM, Kubrat Vapzarov <kvapzarov@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is configuring all multicast interfaces as pim sparse-mode enough to
> prevent the router from falling back to dense mode? I read ten different
> articles on just this topic and the more I read the more confused I get. I
> have the feeling that some of the authors are confused themselves too. The
> Cisco on-line documentation is also unclear. Once it says that by
> configuring BSR we absolutely prevent falling back to dense mode another
> time they state just the opposite. The no ip pim dm-fallback command only
> prevents interfaces configured as pim sparse-dense mode from becoming dense
> interfaces if RP configuration is lost.
> I guess my question is if the task is to ensure that no DM fallback
> occurs what configuration will fulfill the task?
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:48 ARST