Hmm thats a bummer..   I could think of a few ways to get that to work in a
lab environment but nothing that woudl be scalable for production use.
Anyone have any ideas for a solution for a production environment?




On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Rogelio Gamino <[email protected]> wrote:

> Not sure if this helps:
>
>  Known Limitations Summary for Spoke-to-Spoke Deployment Model
>
> This section describes at a high level the known limitations for a dual
> DMVPN cloud topology with the spoke-to-spoke deployment. These known
> limitations should be considered in addition to the known limitations for
> hub-and-spoke deployments.
>
> The following are general limitations:
>
> •ODR cannot be used in spoke-to-spoke topologies.
>
> •OSPF is not recommended as a routing protocol in a spoke-to-spoke
> deployment model because of scaling limitations. For more information, see 
> Chapter 3,
> "Scalability 
> Considerations."<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/DMVPN_3.html#wpxref91566>
>
> The following is a headend limitation:
>
> •mGRE and IPsec source and destination IP addresses must be identical for
> spoke-to-spoke mode to function, which is not possible with a Dual Tier
> Headend Architecture.
>
> The following are branch office limitations:
>
> •Very limited QoS can be provided between spokes. Therefore,
> latency-sensitive applications such as VoIP and video are considered "best
> effort" in spoke-to-spoke DMVPN deployments.
>
> •Dynamic routing is not exchanged between spokes over a spoke-to-spoke
> tunnel. As a result, communication can be lost without knowing the tunnel is
> down.
>
> •Spokes behind a pNAT device cannot establish spoke-to-spoke tunnels.
>
> •No IP multicast traffic can be exchanged between spokes. <--- ????
>
> •In a spoke-to-spoke topology, any traffic can bring an IPsec tunnel to
> another branch in that DMVPN cloud. Because this is done at the L3 (routing)
> level, any IP unicast traffic can then transit over that spoke-to-spoke
> tunnel. This may be a security issue for some deployments because viruses,
> worms, or attack software may spread branch-to-branch without the headend as
> a check point. Other protection mechanisms such as IPS should be implemented
> at every branch that is spoke-to-spoke capable.
>
> •IKE CAC has limitations as well as the maximum number of ISAKMP SA per
> branch platform. For more information, seeIKE Call Admission Control, page
> 2-10<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/DMVPN_2_Phase2.html#wpxref18498>
> .
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/DMVPN_1.html#wp37232
>
>
>
>
>   On Jul 30, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Tyson Scott wrote:
>
>    Aaron,
>
> You would have to re-establish flows but not neighbors.  In a hub and spoke
> environment you have to run sparse mode.  Dense mode isn't an option as
> well, in regards to your first email.
>
> There are times you will see timeouts when just doing testing in a normal
> Ethernet network.  I would recommend getting a real stream going and see if
> it works for you.  I believe based on your comments so far, it should work.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
> Mailto: [email protected]
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208
> Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
> eFax: +1.810.454.0130
>
> IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand,
> Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco
> CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with
> training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and
> Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at
> www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com
>
>  *From:* Aaron Moreck [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 30, 2010 2:11 PM
> *To:* Tyson Scott
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] PIM-SM on DMVPN
>
>  I tried with and without that with the same results.  Do you have to
> re-establish pim neighbor relationships after changing that?
>
>
>
>   On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Tyson Scott <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>    Do you have ip pim nbma-mode on the hub interface.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
> Mailto: [email protected]
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208
> Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
> eFax: +1.810.454.0130
>
> IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand,
> Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco
> CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with
> training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and
> Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at
> www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com
>
>  *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Aaron Moreck
> *Sent:* Friday, July 30, 2010 1:44 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_RS] PIM-SM on DMVPN
>
>  Hello i am configuring PIM-SM on a DMVPN.  We also have an ASA5510 in the
> mix.
>  The topology is as follows:
>
>
>
>
>
>  DMVPN Spokes (Remotes)--------------------       DMVPN Hub
> Router-------------Cisco ASA 5510-----------Cat3560
>
>
>  Most of the Multicast traffic would be sourced from a server attached to
> a vlan on the Cat3560 and destined to members on the DMVPN remote sites.
>
>  I used static RP assignement on all devices making the RP the DMVPN Hub
> router.    I chose this because the ASA does not support Auto RP or BSR.
> Also a note that the ASA does not support Dense-Mode.
>
>  One of the issues i am having that i am most interested about is that if
> i use the "ip igmp join "  on one of the DMVPN Spokes (remote sites)  and i
> try to ping the multicast group from the network on the 3560 it works like a
> charm.  However if i ping that same address from a DMVPN spoke the ping
> ususall succedes two times then fails.     I am assuming this is tied to
> when the dynamic tunnel is brought up between the spokes.
>
>  Does anyone have any ideas of the top of their heads regarding this
> before i need to post configurations?
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Aaron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>

<<blank.gif>>

_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to