On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM, jmangawang <[email protected]> wrote:
> These questions popped up as I was working on IPExpert Volume 3, Lab 3. > > Is the "ip mroute x.x.x.x ..." command acceptable to use at any time > when doing multicasting? I find that sometimes the RPF takes a > different path than where I've configured PIM, and I have to add it, > or modify routing in such a way that it's using the correct RPF. > Obviously, that has the potential to create a whole new mess. I just > wanted to make sure that the "ip mroute" command doesn't have the same > stigma as "ip route". > The sole purpose of the ip mroute command is to fix the RPF check just like you have described. It doesn't have the same stigma of 'no static routes' that ip route has for the lab since that's not what it's really for. > > > Finally, say that I'm asked to do something in layer 2, in this case, > configure multilink PPP over Frame, and I run into a snag that > completely stumps me. Obviously, if I can't get the Frame config > going, I'm SOL for pretty much everything else. Would it be safe for > me to just configure something, anything, to get Frame connectivity up > just so I can at least accomplish the Layer 3 stuff? Or, would me not > configuring it at Layer 2 have a trickle down effect whereby I lose > all points that had anything to do with transport over that Layer 2 > segment? I hope the question isn't to murky... > If you get stumped over something like this where you know how to get fr up without ppp but get stumped on fully configuring ppp, you will definitely want to get fr connectivity up however you can. It's better to lose a few points for ppp authentication for instance than all the points that depend upon fr l2 being up. Michael
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
