From: Dale Kling (dalek77@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2008 - 00:32:01 ART
yeah lets try this again
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Dale Kling <dalek77@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes Correct, I only have one RP. I'm putting the RP on PE1.
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Roman Rodichev <roman@iementor.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No, I got what you were saying, but for a specific VRF do you have RP on
>> both sides (PE1 **and** PE2)? You can only have PE1 **or** PE2 as an RP.
>>
>>
>>
>> Roman Rodichev
>>
>> 5xCCIE #7927 (R&S, Security, Voice, Storage, Service Provider)
>>
>> Instructor, Content Developer. ieMentor Corporation
>>
>> http://www.iementor.com
>>
>> Y!M: roman7927
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Dale Kling [mailto:dalek77@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:24 PM
>>
>> *To:* Roman Rodichev
>> *Cc:* Peter Svidler; dara tomar; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> *Subject:* Re: Multicast VPN with MDT
>>
>>
>>
>> I made PE1's subinterface on that particular VRF the RP address. I think
>> I mislead you a bit earlier, but for testing multi-vrf simultaneously I was
>> just going to use the VRFs corresponding subinterface to the CE router as
>> the RP address for each VRF. Effectively only one RP for each VRF. I don't
>> really like like placing the RP on one side of the WAN like that, but I
>> think it will be fine as long as I setup the control plane before I start
>> streaming huge amounts of multicast end-to-end.
>>
>> Is there and industry standard as far as RP placement when doing VRFs
>> across a big CORE like this?
>>
>> thanks for all the info thus far Roman, you da man. :)
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Roman Rodichev <roman@iementor.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Are you saying you have configured more than one RP for the customer
>> multicast network? You mentioned "made the PE VRF subinterfaces the RP
>> addresses". You can only one have one static RP on the customer network.
>>
>> Regarding SSM, I would need to see your complete configurations to see why
>> SSM didn't work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Roman Rodichev
>> 5xCCIE #7927 (R&S, Security, Voice, Storage, Service Provider)
>> Instructor, Content Developer. ieMentor Corporation
>> http://www.iementor.com
>> Y!M: roman7927
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Dale
>> Kling
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:14 PM
>> To: Roman Rodichev
>> Cc: Peter Svidler; dara tomar; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: Re: Multicast VPN with MDT
>>
>> Are you saying I only need SSM on my PEs and no the Ps? Everything I Read
>> had SSM configured throughout the CORE, so unfortunately I didn't know any
>> better. This is just a test bed for now thank goodness, but this is what
>> I
>> have.
>>
>> SW1---CE1---SW2---PE1---P1---P2---PE2---SW3---CE2----SW4
>>
>> SW=3750s
>> CE=3845
>> PE and P= 7604s
>>
>> I have pim Sparse configured on each VRF on the CEs to the PEs. I did
>> static RPs for now and made the PE VRF subinterfaces the RP addresses.
>> From
>> PE1 through the core to PE2 I configured "ip pim ssm". This didn't work
>> until I made P1 an RP and the rest of the PEs point to it. Something was
>> wrong with my SSM, but the guides I had didn't explain much of anything.
>> They just had ip pim ssm configured on the PEs and Ps and said SSM was the
>> easiest to implement in the CORE. hehe
>>
>> regards,,
>> Dale
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Roman Rodichev <roman@iementor.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > PIM SSM has to be configured on all edge routers, and doesn't have to be
>> > configured on core routers. SSM has to be configured on the routers
>> > connected to SSM-group receivers, other routers don't care about SSM,
>> they
>> > just participate in normal PIM JOIN tree building regardless if it's
>> SPARSE
>> > or SSM.
>> >
>> > Roman Rodichev
>> > 5xCCIE #7927 (R&S, Security, Voice, Storage, Service Provider)
>> > Instructor, Content Developer. ieMentor Corporation
>> > http://www.iementor.com
>> > Y!M: roman7927
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> > Dale
>> > Kling
>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:34 PM
>> > To: Peter Svidler
>> > Cc: dara tomar; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: Re: Multicast VPN with MDT
>> >
>> > Not to steal your thread, but it's funny you mention all this. I just
>> > configured multicast end-to-end on my Multi-VRF CE setup. First time
>> ever
>> > and what a nightmare, took me about a week. I downloaded a few Cisco
>> Docs,
>> > but they seem old. One specifically on multi-vrf multicast.
>> >
>> > For some reason I couldn't get SSM working in my CORE, so I switched to
>> PIM
>> > Sparse and everything worked beautifully. I found this puzzling
>> > considering
>> > all I thought you had to do was configure ip pim ssm on all the Core
>> > routers
>> > with PIM sparse on the interconnections of course. According to the
>> DOCs
>> I
>> > read I thought that was about all you had to do. My mdt default was
>> > 232.1.1.1.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't mind getting my hand on some better DOCs or book
>> recommendations
>> > out there if there are any. I've checked out some Cisco Press Books and
>> > man
>> > some of them bad boys are way overkill and a bit too technical at this
>> > point
>> > for me. It would be nice to just get some nice explanations on the
>> > mechanics of how this stuff is working in the background.
>> >
>> > In any case, I feel your pain and look forward to doing SP after my R&S.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Dale
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Peter Svidler <doubleccie@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > that is exactly what i was expecting ..however i got an error message
>> > says
>> > > that MDT is using interface x for IP address x.x.x.x which is
>> > non-loopback
>> > > interface.
>> > >
>> > > the BGP is using the loopback in both IPV4 and VPNv4 , and PIM is
>> enabled
>> > > on the loopback
>> > >
>> > > I have seen similar post to similar problem in the archieve ..however
>> > have
>> > > not seen any answer to it
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- On Wed, 6/4/08, dara tomar <wish2ie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > From: dara tomar <wish2ie@gmail.com>
>> > > Subject: Re: Multicast VPN with MDT
>> > > To: "Peter Svidler" <doubleccie@yahoo.com>
>> > > Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 8:39 AM
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi Peter,
>> > >
>> > > It should use the same loopback address as the BGP with PIM enabled on
>> > > it!!!
>> > >
>> > > What's the issue, that you are facing, can you elaborate please !!!
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Dara
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Peter Svidler <doubleccie@yahoo.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Folks
>> > > I have a scenario where I am trying to build Multicast VPN using MDT
>> > > between PE's .
>> > > one of my routers , strangely , is not using the loopback address to
>> > > initiate the tunnel (using MDT as explained in documentation should
>> > usually
>> > > use the BGP peer address , which in my case is the loopback to
>> intiate
>> > the
>> > > tunnel )
>> > > I wonder if anyone came across similar problem and explain why it
>> > happens?
>> > >
>> > > thanks
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > 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 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 06:23:20 ART