Hi Scott,
I have tested again on multicast-intact.
---------- B4 Apply mpls traffic-eng multicast-intact--------------
R4#sh ip rpf 131.1.6.6
RPF information for ? (131.1.6.6) failed, no route exists
R4#sh ip route 131.1.6.6
Routing entry for 131.1.6.6/32
Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 6, type intra area
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Tunnel0
Route metric is 6, traffic share count is 1
----------Afer Apply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R4(config)#router ospf 1
Rack1R4(config-router)#mpls traffic-eng multicast-intact ( and other
Router)
Rack1R4#sh ip rpf 131.1.6.6
RPF information for ? (131.1.6.6)
RPF interface: Serial1/0.1
RPF neighbor: ? (131.1.34.3)
RPF route/mask: 131.1.6.6/32
RPF type: unicast (ospf 1)
RPF recursion count: 0
Doing distance-preferred lookups across tables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
So the intact is just for let the router to use unicast
normal route instead of TE to check RPF, Right? And Thank you very much
for sharing an idea of multicast family.Never think of that before. :-)
Best Regards,
Marut
________________________________
From: Scott Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 09 December, 2007 10:13 PM
To: Marut [EMAIL PROTECTED]@DCTH-BKK; [email protected]
Subject: RE: RPF failure when TE using in Provider network
The "mpls traffic-eng multicast-intact" sends TE information down, and
should populate your RPF table. If you are saying that it doesn't work,
is it because your TE information is across areas (OSPF)? Check out the
output of "show ip rpf (IP#)" to see whether there's a match for
incoming interface or not.
Your "ip mroute" command is a good way to solve that problem as well.
In addition, you can use the multicast address-family to assist in
passing information if you are feeling paranoid about the use of "ip
mroute".
There is nothing wrong with using the "ip mroute" command though.
Although the person who wrote the Doc Cd says "it is like a static
route", it has nothing to do with static routing. It just LOOKS like a
static route as far as the line you type in!
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
________________________________
From: Marut [EMAIL PROTECTED]@DCTH-BKK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 4:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: RPF failure when TE using in Provider network
Hi All,
Have you ever face the rpf-failure problem when use TE in
provider network? What the solution do you use to correct it? I always
use static mroute to solve. But I afraid that in real-lab, There might
be some word that forbid to use static mroute.
So what is the other solution? Please kindly help to share
your idea.
May thanks in advance,
Marut
PS. I have tested "mpls traffic-eng multicast-intact" but It never work
:-)
I also tested to run pim on TE (in case of we have both tail end
- head end in two way direction). Doesn't work too.
************************************************************************
****
This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
http://www.datacraft-asia.com/disclaimer
************************************************************************
****
