From: Mike M (mike_malan@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 19:57:35 ART
Hi,
So would I be right in saying that if there is a
failure of the RP, you could use
"no ip pim dm-fallback" to stop the multicast network
being flooded with multicast traffic.
In this case then you would be safer to configure a
backup RP?
Just a few thoughts here!
regards
Mike
--- sourabh agarwal <ag_sourabh@rediffmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Manuel,
>
> If it's asked to use only sparse mode on interfaces,
> then with
> AutoRP scenario we need to use ip pim autrp listener
> command which will enable
> dense traffic for group 2240.1.39 and 224.0.1.40 to
> pass through sparse mode
> enabled interfaces.
>
> If sparse-dense mode is configured under interfaces
> then
> we don't need to have ip pim autorp listener command
> because for 2240.1.39 and
> 224.0.1.40 traffic will be densed and for other
> groups which has RP will be
> sparsed. However, only disadvantage of using
> sparse-dense mode in autorp is
> that if RP failed, entire multicast domain will
> fallback to dense mode which
> will cause large amount of traffic to flood
> throughout domain if there are
> several clients joining different groups.
>
> HTH, let me know in case you need
> more information.
>
> Regards
> Sourabh
>
>
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 Manuel Mindez Cano
> wrote :
> >Hello experts,
> >
> >Can anybody explain when is better to use autorp
> listener than sparse-dense
> >mode.
> >
> >If I understand, both methods are Cisco
> mechanisms to avoid the
> >chicken-and-egg problem in Auto-RP environments.
> >
> >So the question again is, how to know which one to
> use in front of an
> >ambiguous multicast scenario with auto-rp?
> >
> >Many thanks in advance.
> >
> >Manuel.
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
> >Subscription information may be found at:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:18 ART