Re: Auto RP Listener

Thanks Ravi.. I got that stuff clear now..

Regards,
Thameem

Anthony Sequeira <asequeira_at_internetworkexpert.com>
Sent by: nobody_at_groupstudy.com
17/04/2009 04:59 AM
Please respond to
Anthony Sequeira <asequeira_at_internetworkexpert.com>

To
"Jared Scrivener" <jscrivener_at_ipexpert.com>
cc
"'Dale Shaw'" <dale.shaw_at_gmail.com>, "'Cisco certification'"
<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Subject
Re: Auto RP Listener

And the obvious gotcha in the lab exam - the fact that they were
looking for one solution versus another.

A major challenge with the Multicast section - and all sections for
that matter - is interpreting what tools are required when they are
implicitly asking for them.

Warmest Regards,

Anthony J. Sequeira, CCIE #15626, CCSI #23251
Senior CCIE Instructor

asequeira_at_internetworkexpert.com

Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344

Listening to "A Murder Of One" by
Counting Crows from
August & Everything After

On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Jared Scrivener wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Fri Apr 17 2009 - 06:51:48 ART