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
