Re: Please confirm (conf#5da14c1ecb1141ac59da3cacddc91e58)

Confirmed

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Cisco certification <
ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You have tried to post to a GroupStudy.com certification mailing list.
> Because
> the server does not recognize you as a confirmed poster, you will be
> required
> to authenticate that you are using a valid e-mail address and are not a
> spammer. By confirming this e-mail you certify that you are not sending
> Unsolicited Bulk Email (UBE).
>
> PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE AGAIN! BY CONFIRMING THIS EMAIL
> YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE (WHICH IS NOW QUEUED IN THE SERVER) WILL BE POSTED.
>
>
> By confirming this e-mail you also certify the following:
>
> 1. The message does NOT break Cisco's Non-Disclosure requirements.
>
> 2. The message is NOT designed to advertise a commercial product.
>
> 3. You understand all postings become property of GroupStudy.com
>
> 4. You have searched the archives prior to posting.
>
> 5. The message is NOT inflammatory.
>
> 6. The message is NOT a test message.
>
> To confirm, simply reply to this message. No editing is necessary. Once
> confirmed, you will be able to post without additional confirmations.
>
>
> Welcome to GroupStudy.com!
>
>
> First time posters to GroupStudy.com are required to agree to the
> GroupStudy terms and conditions.
> Replying to this email, certifies you have read and agree to the GroupStudy
> posting guidelines and terms and conditions.
>
> --- Original Message Follows ---
>
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 12:46:27 +0800
> Subject: MSDP
> From: Geoff Blogs <hacked.the.planet.on.28.8k.dialup_at_gmail.com>
> To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>
> Hello GS,
>
> I am doing the IE Multicasting Technology Labs v4.1 at the moment. The MSDP
> Lab in particular on page 74 and I need some help.
>
> I have the entire lab setup and running MSDP and PIM-SM between the
> interfaces on R2 and R4, to really test this out I have joined SW1 and SW2
> to the igmp group 224.1.1.1 and icmp'd the group address from R5. I get
> replies from both switches and everything works just dandy.T
>
> Then to perform some further testing and to make sure it was definately
> working correctly I took of the MSDP configuration, cleared all the
> multicast routes and tested the scenario again, believing that I would only
> get replies from SW2 which is in my local AS but this was not the case,
> because there was a PIM-SM neighbor relationship between R2 and R4, R2 sent
> a join message to R4 and look out I'm up and running between two domains
> without MSDP.
>
> Ok, so I figured that was silly, I should turn PIM-SM off the interfaces
> between R2 and R4 then MSDP back on and then re-run both tests. I did that
> and now i'm even more confused, the behaviour I got was when I sent through
> the first ICMP to the group it went through and I got a reply from both
> neighbors, after that the PIM-SM behaviour where the Receiver will create a
> new SPT straight to the source was created instead of using the RP; because
> of this behaviour the RP decides that there are no recipients for the
> stream
> coming through him anymore and sends a prune message, to which none ot the
> multicast traffic is sent to R5 and therefore never forwarded across the
> domain!
>
> So my query here is, what is the point of MSDP for interdomain connectivity
> like this presented on the lab for interdomain connectivity if it works
> with
> PIM-SM without it... or is there something I'm missing with my MSDP
> configuration to get around PIM-SM RP pruning itself from the tree after
> the
> first ICMP?
>
> I haven't worked my way up to multicast BGP but would this get around the
> issue or would I have the same problems??
>
> Thanks in advance for your help GS!
>
> Regards,
>
> Garth

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun May 17 2009 - 13:43:27 ART