Re: BSR RP

From: Marko Milivojevic (markom@markom.info)
Date: Wed Dec 10 2008 - 12:57:23 ARST

Next message: Pavel Bykov: "Re: Multicast testing "not RPF interface""
Previous message: Pavel Bykov: "Re: BGP Reachability Qns"
Maybe in reply to: Ed Man: "BSR RP"
Next in thread: Rick Mur: "Re: BSR RP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

BSR will automatically select the one with the higher address.

Take a look at this document:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/solutions_docs/ip_multicast/White_papers/rps.html#wp1033721

--
Marko
CCIE #18427 (SP)
My network blog: http://cisco.markom.info/
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 14:47, Ed Man <networkexpert08@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> R7#sho ip pim rp map in-use
> PIM Group-to-RP Mappings
>
> Group(s) 224.0.0.0/4
>  RP 10.224.1.2 (?), v2
>    Info source: 10.224.1.2 (?), via bootstrap, priority 0, holdtime 150
>         Uptime: 01:16:14, expires: 00:02:07
>  RP 10.224.1.1 (?), v2
>    Info source: 10.224.1.2 (?), via bootstrap, priority 0, holdtime 150
>         Uptime: 01:17:52, expires: 00:02:11
>
> Dynamic (Auto-RP or BSR) RPs in cache that are in use:
> Group(s): 224.0.0.0/4, *RP: 10.224.1.2*, expires: 00:00:55
>
>
> Don't know why the RP is 10.224.1.2 but not 10.224.1.1?
> Some book said the smallest candidate RP address makes the tie-break.
>
> Could you please give me some clues?
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net

Next message: Pavel Bykov: "Re: Multicast testing "not RPF interface""
Previous message: Pavel Bykov: "Re: BGP Reachability Qns"
Maybe in reply to: Ed Man: "BSR RP"
Next in thread: Rick Mur: "Re: BSR RP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:08 ARST