RE: Auto RP Listener - Hijack

Jared et al,

A have a couple of a questions about nbma-mode and tunneled traffic between hosts.

Is there a difference between nmba-mode in sparse vs sparse-dense when you're only dealing with a 2 spoke design with RPs at each spoke and the MA at the hub. The potential traffic that you're trying to not flood is actually desired by both spokes.

The second layout for tunneled spoke traffic is basically the same

The scenario I'm thinking of specifically has the following requirements:
Spoke RP ---
            - Hub MA
Spoke RP ---

OSPF mode for this environment is point-to-multipoint non-broadcast

So there is a requirement for tunnels to pass the multicast traffic between the hub and spokes. If you wanted to be as specific as possible from the perspective of the spokes, would you only need to static mroute the MA's bound address and the RP Announce messages (224.0.1.39)? I have seen a static default mroute used in this case and I have tried only enabling the host route for the MA, but I was not successful. The strange thing is, I was getting RPF failures on the MA until the default was in place.

Any ideas?

-ryan

  
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Jared Scrivener
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 8:38 PM
To: 'Dale Shaw'; 'Cisco certification'
Subject: 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 - 21:27:56 ART