RE: Auto RP Listener

It's a much more elegant solution - that's my preferred command to use when
running Auto-RP with Sparse Mode. I can't think of any gotchas, besides the
obvious - Dense Mode flooding would be disabled due to the choice of using
Sparse Mode only.

Cheers,
 
Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP
Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
Mailto: jscrivener_at_ipexpert.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Shaw
Sent: Thursday, 16 April 2009 6:47 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Auto RP Listener

Does everyone agree that for networks where 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40
are the only groups requiring dense mode operation (i.e. PIM-SM
domains with AutoRP), that "ip pim auto-rp listener" is a more elegant
solution than sparse-dense-mode?

Are there any gotchyas?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
> Your interfaces would be configured for ip pim sparse-mode, not
sparse-dense
> (because otherwise you wouldn't need Auto-RP Listener)
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 19:02, Jason Alex <amr.ccie_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> As i know that the command "*ip pim auto-rp listener*"
>> configures sparse mode operation for all the multicast groups except "*
>> 224.0.1.39*" & "*224.0.1.40*" works as a dense mode operation
>>
>> So the question is , should i configure the PIM interfaces with "*ip pim
>> sparse-mode*" or "*ip pim sparse-dense-mode*" ?
>>
>> Thanks In Advance

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Apr 16 2009 - 20:38:18 ART