Thank you so much for your reply. That answers questions 1 & 3.
However, I'm still not clear about question No. 2: 2. Whenever we have more than one RP (assuming AutoRP), then we will ALWAYS need the ip pim rp-announce-filter command! Is this true? For instance, in Vol 3, Lab 2, Task 5.1 (which by the way is the one that initiated this thread) we have 2 RPs: R2 & R7 Here we are implementing BSR instead AutoRP. But what if you were doing AutoRP? Would we need ip pim rp-announce-filter statements if that was the case? Or in general terms, do we ALWAYS need it when we have more than one RP? To me the answer is yes. Otherwise, if no filters were applied, then ALL RP's would allow ALL Groups, which I think it may not be a desirable thing. Am I wrong? --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Joe Astorino <[email protected]> wrote: From: Joe Astorino <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Question about Multicast: ip pim rp-announce-filter To: "Carlos Valero" <[email protected]> Cc: "Jared Scrivener" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 3:55 AM 1) Sort of: The ip pim rp-announce-filter command is used basically to allow your AutoRP mapping agent to totally ignore the advertisements of specific RP candidates and specific multicast groups. Normally, with respect to the CCIE lab I would say yes this is safe to say because you KNOW everything that is out there in your topology. Therefore, if say your lab diagram shows only a single RP it does not make sense to use this feature. But consider a real world example -- Say that in your company you have a single RP that you KNOW about ... but some guy decides it is a good idea to run his own RP without the permission of the network team. You are screwed. So it is a good idea to implement the command to make sure your MA only accepts advertisements from authorized devices. 2) No that is not true -- See my comment on question #1. It is a admin choice not a requirement. 3) Again, I think the response to question #1 should clear this up for you. Hopefully this clears things up and makes a little more sense for you now : ) On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carlos Valero <[email protected]> wrote: 1. Is it safe to state the following: ip pim rp-announce-filter is needed ONLY when we have more than one RP 2. Moreover, is this statement true or false: Whenever we have more than one RP (assuming AutoRP), then we will ALWAYS need the ip pim rp-announce-filter command! I'm just trying to make some sense out of it. Sometimes this command is being used and sometimes it is not. So I wonder if this logic is correct or not. 3. Finally, would it make sense to use ip pim rp-announce-filter if we have a single RP? Thank you!! --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Carlos Valero <[email protected]> wrote: From: Carlos Valero <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 3, Lab 2, Task 5.1 (Multicast) To: "Jared Scrivener" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Joe Astorino" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 12:18 AM Thank you for your reply. Since you said that it's been fixed, Could you please send me the actual solution to this section? (should be a few lines only, right?) I mean, I can't wait until your next update cycle to see the actual solution. I really want to get this clear now, because I'm already confused enough with this Multicast topic, which doesn't make too much sense to me until now. Thank you for your help! --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Jared Scrivener <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jared Scrivener <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 3, Lab 2, Task 5.1 (Multicast) To: "Jared Scrivener" <[email protected]>, "Carlos Valero" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Joe Astorino" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 11:16 AM OK, seems like I jumped in a little prematurely here. The ACL is fine and the priority doesn’t need swapping in your solution below, Carlos (but your question has a typo). Anyhow, the Solution Guide is being updated correctly and will be in the members section on our next update cycle. Cheers, Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: [email protected] From: Jared Scrivener <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:12:48 -0400 To: Carlos Valero <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Joe Astorino <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 3, Lab 2, Task 5.1 (Multicast) The ACL is fine. The priority value should be swapped so that it uses 10 on R2 and 20 on R7. This is just another lesson in how CCIE’s can make typo’s. I’m fixing it up in our Proctor Guide now. Cheers, Jared Scrivener CCIE3 #16983 (R&S, Security, SP), CISSP Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: [email protected] From: Carlos Valero <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT) To: <[email protected]>, Joe Astorino <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 3, Lab 2, Task 5.1 (Multicast) Made a little mistake on the requirements section. The second part should be like this: Configure R7 to announce candidacy as an RP for Groups: - First octet = 225 or 227 - Second octet less than 128 - Priority = 20 Originally I wrote Priority = 10 But the solution it is being configured with Priority = 10 - ip pim rp-candidate l1 group-list 51 prio 10 That's exactly the source of my confusion. Why is R7 configuration based on R2's requirements and vice-versa? --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Carlos Valero <[email protected]> wrote: From: Carlos Valero <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Vol 3, Lab 2, Task 5.1 (Multicast) To: [email protected], "Joe Astorino" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 7:26 PM Hello, I think I need some help with this task. It seems to be quite simple, but to me the solution seems to be backwards and I'm very confused and stock! Requirements: Configure R2 to announce candidacy as an RP for Groups: - First octet = 225 or 227 - Priority = 10 Configure R7 to announce candidacy as an RP for Groups: - First octet = 225 or 227 - Second octet less than 128 - Priority = 10 Solution: R2: access-list 51 permit 225.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 access-list 51 permit 227.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 ip pim rp-candidate l1 group-list 51 prio 20 ip pim bsr-candidate l1 R7: access-list 51 permit 225.0.0.0 0.127.255.255 access-list 51 permit 227.0.0.0 0.127.255.255 access-list 51 permit 225.0.0.0 0.127.255.255 access-list 51 permit 227.0.0.0 0.127.255.255 ip pim rp-candidate l1 group-list 51 prio 10 ip pim bsr-candidate l1 This seems to be backwards to me! That is, the requirements state that R2 should have a Priority = 10 and R7 should have a Priority = 20 But it is configured backwards! R2 = 20 and R7 = 10! Needless to say, the ACL also seem to be backwards to me! Obviously, there is something that I'm missing here. And frankly I don't know what it is. I hope somebody can help. Did I mention that Multicast is my less favorite topic? Actually I should say that I almost hate it :-( --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Joe Astorino <[email protected]> wrote: -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com -- Regards, Joe Astorino CCIE #24347 (R&S) Sr. Support Engineer – IPexpert, Inc. URL: http://www.IPexpert.com Skype: joe_astorino
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
