Hi Adam and all, on R6 they had: ! access-list 1 permit 239.1.1.1 access-list 1 permit 239.1.1.2 ! ip pim send-rp-announce lo0 scope 10 group-list 1 ip pim send-rp-discovery lo0 scope 10 !
that means they announced via AutoRP that this router (R6) wanted to be RP for 2 MDT groups (239.1.1.1 & 239.1.1.2). But at the same time the presenter defined following on this router R6: ! ip pim rp-address 6.6.6.6 ! <<< statically defining this R6 to be the RP (but that is irrelevant as you mentioned the dynamic RP announcement is preferred over the static). Then he was checking on other routers RP mapping tables where apart from the expected 2 multicast groups (239.1.1.1 & 239.1.1.2) he was also seeing whole multicast range 224/4 R6 being RP for. So then he added "1" to the end of the static RP defining statement (ip pim rp-address 6.6.6.6 1) and that corrected the issue, after clearing the RP mappings on other routers he could see the 2 multicast groups only advertised by RP R6. My concern is, that if the dynamic RP mapping is preferred why the R6 was still announced as RP for 224/8 due to the static definition? ....is it because he did not wait enough time after clearing the RP mappings before he added the "1" Marian Dňa 5.2.2012, o 22:27, Adam Booth <[email protected]> napísal: > Hi Marian, > > That config fragment is using a combination of autorp and static rp > assignment. Unless there was an override keyword in the static > configuration, the autorp config will take precedence in selecting the RP > (and associated MA) since these are both for the same groups. > > Most likely the VOD was describing static RP assignment first and didn't > remove the static config without explaining why it wouldn't be a problem > (dynamic configs for RP selection being favoured over static unless you're > specifying override) > > Cheers, > Adam > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Marian Franc <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > in the Frame Relay cloud (provider network) we want R6 (P router) become RP > for the provider multicast traffic through which we want to tunnel the > customers VPN generated multicast traffic. What confuses me on the video at > around 12th - 13th minute in the video the presenter defines the following on > the R6: > > ! > access-list 1 permit 239.1.1.1 > access-list 1 permit 239.1.1.2 > ! > ip pim send-rp-announce lo0 scope 10 group-list 1 > ip pim send-rp-discovery lo0 scope 10 > ip pim rp-address 6.6.6.6 1 > ! > > What confuses me is that R6 only started to be advertising it is the RP for > 239.1.1.1 and 239.1.1.2 when the "1" (referencing to the acl 1) was added to > the already existing last command "ip pim rp-address 6.6.6.6". My question is > why? Shouldn't it have been claiming to be the RP for the 2 multicast groups > already without the last command (ip pim rp-address 6.6.6.6 1) only due to > "ip pim send-rp-announce lo0 scope 10 group-list 1"? > > Thank you in advance for any feedback. > > Marian > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com > > http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
