Abdel, I think when I used this one, it worked fine. I am not sure if ip subnet-zero is a default but I did put it when I was doing it.
Regards, Samir. On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:00 AM, <[email protected]>wrote: > Send CCIE_RS mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of CCIE_RS digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Vol 1, lab 30 Mpls VPN Multicast..... (Roger Pfaeffli) > 2. /31 mask (abdel el anazi) > 3. Re: PIM autorp listener- Do I need it? (Marko Milivojevic) > 4. Re: /31 mask (Marko Milivojevic) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:56:17 +0200 > From: "Roger Pfaeffli" <[email protected]> > To: "'Mark Beynon'" <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 1, lab 30 Mpls VPN Multicast..... > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Mark, > > Without knowing the topology and the question of the workbook I can give > you > the following answer: > > Option 1 - new style: you use the MDT address family in which you will > "signal" the address of the source PE and the default MDT group. NOTE: Your > IOS has to support this MDT address family! > > Option 2 - old style: In the old IOS, Cisco uses a proprietary workaround > which prevents from using the MDT address family. IOS is using the BGP > extended community attribute with type 2 routed distinguisher, to > distinguish from other vpnv4 addresses. I think this is the option in your > case. Check out your routes, I'm sure you will find the following in your > vpnv4: > > sh ip bgp vpnv4 all > Route Distinguisher: 2:64512:1313 > *> 138.187.1.2/32 0.0.0.0 > > Do you see the notation 2:x:y? This indicates your MDT route! > > Check out the following link on the DocCD which does have nice infos: > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ipmulti/configuration/guide/imc_cfg_mc_v > pn_ps6350_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html#wp1055404 > > regards > > Roger > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Beynon > Sent: Sonntag, 15. August 2010 00:00 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 1, lab 30 Mpls VPN Multicast..... > > Hi guys!! Sorry to seek your assistance yet again, but it is a the first > time I have played with mpls VPN multicast and havin some problems. > > I done the lab, and got everything up and running easy enough. In VPNA I > could ping the multicast group from ce, across the mpls l3 VPN core to the > multicast subcriber ce. Likewise VPNB. > > Quite happy with myself at this point. Mdt and tunnels up and working fine. > > I review the the DSG, and I have done everything correct, except I didn't > configure an mdt address family in bgp! It still seems to work fine. > > I have done some reading to try and understand why it's needed, and why > mines working. Buy I'm not clear... > > I understand that no RP is needed in SSM as there are no shared trees. > I now understand that mbgp mdt address family is needed so that each pe can > be told what sources it needs to register to. (is that right?) > > I'm guessing in my scenario it doesn't actually need the mdt because it > knows about the remote pe's as it is configured in vpnv4 family (?). > > If we had a non configured remote pe, such as via route reflectors it > wouldn't know to subscribe, without the mdt family. > > Is this right? > > I have been searching for the answer but not managed to find. Now watching > vlecture on mpls multicast, but unfurtunetly they voted for any source > multicast, so don't think it will be confirmed here :( > > Appreciate any clarity! > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:59:27 +0200 > From: abdel el anazi <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] /31 mask > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > Hi All, > > During VL 2 lab 5 task 2.0 I got confused by the concept of /31 mask. > according the requirement I need to setup the FR between R2 and R4 with /31 > mask. > but when i try to ping from R2 to R4 the ping fails. > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.099: FIBipv4-packet-proc: route packet from (local) src > 0.0.0.0 dst 172.16.24.4 > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: Default:0.0.0.0/0 proces level > forwarding > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: depth 0 first_idx 0 paths 1 long 0(0) > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: try path 0 (of 1) v4-sp first short ext > 0(-1) > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: v4-sp valid > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: no nh type 8 - deag > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: ip_pak_table 0 ip_nh_table 65535 if none > nh none deag 1 chg_if 0 via fib 0 path type special prefix > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: Default:0.0.0.0/0 not enough info to > forward via fib (none none) > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBipv4-packet-proc: packet routing failed > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: IP: s=0.0.0.0 (local), d=172.16.24.4, len 100, > unroutable > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: ICMP type=8, code=0. > > no physical problems when I change the mask on both sides to /29 ping is > successfully working. my understanding of the /31 is little bit rusty can > someone explain what the reason of the task if you can't send anything over > the link? > > This is what i found on Cisco side: > Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links > RFC 3021 leavingcisco.com describes using 31-bit prefixes for > point-to-point links. This leaves 1 bit for the host-id portion of the IP > address. Normally a host-id of all zeros is used to represent the network or > subnet, and a host-id of all ones is used to represent a directed broadcast. > Using 31-Bit prefixes, the host-id of 0 represents one host, and a host-id > of 1 represents the other host of a point-to-point link. > Local link (limited) broadcasts (255.255.255.255) can still be used with > 31-bit prefixes. But directed broadcasts are not possible to a 31-bit > prefix. This is not really a problem because most routing protocols use > multicast, limited broadcasts, or unicasts. > > > > According to the solution guide R2 use frame relay P-to-P and R4 use the > physical interface. but if i change both sides to point-to-point sub-int it > still doesn't ping so what is the purpose of having /31 mask > > > > Regards, > > A. el Anazi > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: </archives/ccie_rs/attachments/20100816/422a240d/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:48:53 +0200 > From: Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]> > To: jason lau <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] PIM autorp listener- Do I need it? > Message-ID: > > <[email protected]<aanlktinwfjvxbtpc%2brv8cm1eejy7hbf9f_%2bdrovwu%[email protected]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Jason, > > Configuring "autorp listener" is no longer required, as most of the 12.4T > IOSs will forward 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40 in dense-mode, regardless of > the > interface settings. Yes, this is contrary to what it used to be. > > -- > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert > > FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture > > Mailto: [email protected] > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 20:14, jason lau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > in the Multicase Configuration lab, topology is R2 -- R4--- R1, R2 is RP > > and mapping agent, all routers' interfaces are in PIM sparse > mode.according > > to docs, when R4 receives 224.0.1.40 traffic, it won't pass it to R1, the > > solution is config PIM auotp listener on R4, so R4 can flood 224.0.1.40 > to > > R1. > > > > However, in my lab, why without PIM auotp listener command on any router, > > R1 still receive 224.0.1.40 and get correct RP mapping? as I said, NO any > > interface is in sparse-dense mode, all are in spare mode. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jason > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: </archives/ccie_rs/attachments/20100816/4fb1957b/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:56:38 +0200 > From: Marko Milivojevic <[email protected]> > To: abdel el anazi <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] /31 mask > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Abdel, > > There are no issues using /31 links on FrameRelay physical interfaces. > Here's the quick configuration I've don between R2 and R4 in > ProctorLabs using 24.24.24.0/31 subnet, where R2 is using 24.24.24.0 > and R4 24.24.24.1 address: > > R2: > ------------------------- > interface Serial0/1/0 > no ip address > encapsulation frame-relay > no frame-relay inverse-arp > ! > interface Serial0/1/0.204 point-to-point > ip address 24.24.24.0 255.255.255.254 > frame-relay interface-dlci 204 > ! > > R4: > ------------------------- > interface Serial0/0/0 > ip address 24.24.24.1 255.255.255.254 > encapsulation frame-relay > frame-relay map ip 24.24.24.0 402 > no frame-relay inverse-arp > ! > > Here are the ping tests: > > R2#ping 24.24.24.1 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 24.24.24.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/12/16 ms > > R4#ping 24.24.24.0 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 24.24.24.0, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 12/13/16 ms > > Now, it would be good to see your configuration and analyze it to see > if you made some kind of a mistake. Also, did you use real equipment > or some kind of an emulation? > > -- > Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert > > FREE CCIE training: http://bit.ly/vLecture > > Mailto: [email protected] > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Web: http://www.ipexpert.com/ > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 15:59, abdel el anazi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > During VL 2 lab 5 task 2.0 I got confused by the concept of /31 mask. > > according the requirement I need to setup the FR between R2 and R4 with > /31 > > mask. > > but when i try to ping from R2 to R4 the ping fails. > > > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.099: FIBipv4-packet-proc: route packet from (local) src > > 0.0.0.0 dst 172.16.24.4 > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: Default:0.0.0.0/0 proces level > forwarding > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: depth 0 first_idx 0 paths 1 long 0(0) > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: try path 0 (of 1) v4-sp first short > ext > > 0(-1) > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: v4-sp valid > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc:? no nh type 8? - deag > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: ip_pak_table 0 ip_nh_table 65535 if > none > > nh none deag 1 chg_if 0 via fib 0 path type special prefix > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBfwd-proc: Default:0.0.0.0/0 not enough info to > > forward via fib (none none) > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: FIBipv4-packet-proc: packet routing failed > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103: IP: s=0.0.0.0 (local), d=172.16.24.4, len 100, > > unroutable > > *Aug 16 14:47:27.103:???? ICMP type=8, code=0. > > > > no physical problems when I change the mask on both sides to /29 ping is > > successfully working. my understanding of the /31 is little bit rusty can > > someone explain what the reason of the task if you can't send anything > over > > the link? > > > > This is what i found on Cisco side: > > Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links > > RFC 3021 leavingcisco.com describes using 31-bit prefixes for > point-to-point > > links. This leaves 1 bit for the host-id portion of the IP address. > Normally > > a host-id of all zeros is used to represent the network or subnet, and a > > host-id of all ones is used to represent a directed broadcast. Using > 31-Bit > > prefixes, the host-id of 0 represents one host, and a host-id of 1 > > represents the other host of a point-to-point link. > > Local link (limited) broadcasts (255.255.255.255) can still be used with > > 31-bit prefixes. But directed broadcasts are not possible to a 31-bit > > prefix. This is not really a problem because most routing protocols use > > multicast, limited broadcasts, or unicasts. > > > > > > > > According to the solution guide R2 use frame relay P-to-P and R4 use the > > physical interface. but if i change both sides to point-to-point sub-int > it > > still doesn't ping so what is the purpose of having /31 mask > > > End of CCIE_RS Digest, Vol 55, Issue 48 > *************************************** > -- Samir Idris
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
