From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2008 - 08:47:15 ART
In older versions of IOS, it wasn't necessary (many doc examples show it
this way)
I believe the change was in 12.2T if I recall, but now-days you absolutely
MUST have the RP configured to be an RP itself, otherwise things will get
rejected as you are seeing.
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
Senior CCIE Instructor
smorris@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344
Online Community: Our community scares other communities
CCIE Blog: Our blog site has very helpful information
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Permoda
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:33 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: ip pim rp-address
All,
I know this is an old topic but I have been seeing different opinions from
different vendors. When configuring sparse mode only and using static RPs do
we have to configure the ip pim rp-address on the RP itself or no? From my
own experience it is good practice do configure it and I am actually testing
it right now and it doesn't work without it. I get "Received Register from
router 129.1.46.6 for group 232.32.32.32, 150.1.0.255 not willing to be RP".
After I configure the ip pim rp-address command on the RP, all works.
However, I have gotten feedback from Cisco that it is not needed. Could
anyone clarify this please? Thanks, Mike P.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2008 - 09:26:17 ART