Steve Telford wrote: > > Regarding PIM Sparse, Dense and Sparse-Dense modes, does anyone > know why the > often stated design preference for sparse-dense exists?
I think that the logic is that with sparese-dense, the m-cast network could continue to function even if the RP were to die. It's just a fallback mechanism. > > I realise the Auto-RP requirement which is for Dense mode, > would mean an > otherwise sparse mode network needs to support dense. Is this > the main > driver for sparse-dense or is there some other technical reason? > > I see with software updates Auto-RP can now be supported under > sparse mode > only configured interfaces: > > ip pim autorp listener > > which causes the two auto-rp groups 224.0.1.39 and 224.0.1.40 > to be dense > mode flooded. > > Is there any other requirement for dense mode if the auto-rp > issue is taken > away? Anyone got any comments? > > cheers, > > teflon > > [GroupStudy removed an attachment of type image/gif] > > [GroupStudy removed an attachment of type Image/jpeg] > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=73115&t=73108 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
