From: sourabh agarwal (ag_sourabh@rediffmail.com)
Date: Thu May 22 2008 - 13:55:50 ART
Hello Mike,
Yes, you are right that no ip pim dm fallback will be helpful as
after RP failure multicast domain wont fallback to dense mode.
You can also
use multiple RPs too. We can also configure static RP for groups 224.0.1.39
and 224.0.1.40 on all multicast enabled routers pointing to themselve so that
when dynamically learned RP info is lost, each router in multicast domain is
RP for those 2 groups, hence traffic for those 2 groups will still be treated
as sparse. However this solution is not scalable but can be one of the
possible option available.
Regards
Sourabh
On Thu, 22 May 2008 Mike M wrote
:
>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
> >
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________________________________
> >
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