more comments within and below ( nice phrasing, by the way )

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Chuck Larrieu; Cisco Mail List
Subject: Re: RE: Subject: EIGRP's interpretation of NBMA and "disabling
[7:14934]


Chuck et al,

Comments within and below.



________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag


---- On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Chuck Larrieu ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> hey, Paul, what's going on?


Not much, just waiting for the economy to pick up :-)

CL: me too. the bonus situation is non existent :- now I'm more confused
than ever. how does PIM relate to EIGRP
behavior
> on
> NMBA networks?

I would state that slightly differently, such as this:

How does EIGRP behavior on NMBA networks relate to PIM?

CL: if at all. I would wager that most of us have never configured PIM in a
production environment, no matter what routing protocol we choose.


> I interpreted the original question and CCO quote as
discussing how
> EIGRP
> sets its hello timers based on the physical/data link layer
of SMDS or
> frame
> relay, which can be configured (in cooperation with the
telco) as a
> multicast net or a series of point to point links.

I confess I do not have the original link you mentioned, so I
was looking at the generalized discussion of EIGRP timers which
is here:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios11/c
book/ciproute.htm#xtocid1674334

If the discussion in those paragraphs is what you are
referencing, my belief about EIGRP timer automatic adjustments
based upon physical media is not from an interaction of that
media to the protocol, rather a recognition by the protocol on
how the media functions.  If you have an NBMA media (recognized
by the encapsulation command) and a low speed interface
(recognized by the bandwidth command), EIGRP will make an
automatic adjustment of its timers from 5 seconds to 1 minute.
It goes on to further state that high speed NBMA networks
(frame or SMDS) will get he "LAN equivalent" timer of 5
seconds.  The only possible exception to this is a low speed
NBMA networks (Frame and SMDS are mentioned).  In that
particular instance, somebody may have turned on a feature or
functionality to cause that interface to behave differently
than it normally does, thus causing an exception to the rule.

CL: again, my read of the paragraph "Note that for the purposes of Enhanced
IGRP, Frame Relay and SMDS networks may or may not be considered to be NBMA.
These networks are considered NBMA if the interface has not been configured
to use physical multicasting; otherwise they are considered not to be NBMA."
and the specific reference to "physical multicasting" led me to look into
the nature of SMDS, where I came up with the reference to configuration of
SMDS addresses as group "You can map an SMDS group address to a broadcast or
multicast address used by a higher-level protocol"

CL: dratted CCO configuration guides tell you to see the configuration
examples, but a look through several IOS version config guides back to 11.3
all fail to provide any such examples, and again, not having worked on any
of this stuff, I am left unclear on the concept.

CL: on the other hand, while it is true that in terms of conceptualization,
a layer three protocol is not aware of nor dependent upon layer two or layer
one configurations, the fact is that the internal workings of the IOS are
not strictly segregated by layer. my reading of both frame and SMDS indicate
that there exist the means to change certain behaviours that most of us take
for granted because truth be told we just never see them in the real world.
an extreme case in point is the globally significant frame relay dlci, which
makes it possible to create in effect an ethernet on a frame cloud.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/itg_v1/tr1918.htm#xtocid126
685

"Each router interface has a distinct value as its node identifier, so
individual devices can be distinguished. This permits adaptive routing in
complex environments. Global addressing provides significant benefits in a
large, complex internetwork. The Frame Relay network now appears to the
routers on its periphery like any LAN. No changes to higher-layer protocols
are needed to take full advantage of their capabilities."

CL: that's what I thought was being discussed. of course, I've been known to
wander off on tangents unrelated to the true point. :->


That is when I went to the section on PIM.  It made a reference
to a "PIM nbma-mode".  The intro paragraph would seem to
indicate that the default behavior of the interface is being
changed to conform with the exception noted in my paragraph
above:

"PIM nonbroadcast, multiaccess mode allows the router to
replicate packets for each neighbor on the NBMA network.
Traditionally, Cisco routers replicate multicast and broadcast
packets to all "broadcast" configured neighbors. This might be
inefficient when not all neighbors want packets for certain
multicast groups. NBMA mode allows you to reduce bandwidth on
links leading into the NBMA network, as well as CPU cycles in
switches and attached neighbors."

CL: yep. I agree. I've briefly reviewed my PIM notes from ECP1 and I recall
some discussion along this line. but PIM - protocol independent
multicasting - isn't it by it's very nature unrelated to routing protocol
behaviour?

While I am not saying that this is what the author's were
really trying to communicate between the two references, it
seems plausible.

CL: agreed

> my admittedly brief reading indicates that given the right
> configurations on
> the telco side, both SMDS and frame can become layer two
multicast
> networks,
> behaving in a similar manner to ethernet, in that packets are
> automatically
> replicated to all end points. While this is rare in the frame
relay
> world,
> because it involves enlisting the option that permits
globally unique
> DLCIs,
> it is not uncommon in the SMDS world.

Okay, since I will hardly admit to knowing much about SMDS, the
logical question that has to be drawn from your discussion
above is how will the router be able to tell the difference
between these two different types of WANs?  Something has to be
present in a standardized manner that the IOS can readily
recognize as a trigger to indicate that non-standard protocol
behavior is in force. Which field would indicate this and on
which header?

CL: to repeat a previous point, I would say that the IOS, being the
overlord, would recognize the interface configuration and would then pass a
parameter into EIGRP. being Cisco proprietary, EIGRP does not have to
conform to any of those pesky interoperability standards, and so the IOS can
be optimized to do things that are not permitted with the open standards. no
headers involved. no packet formats to consider. the secret inner working of
the EIGRP/IOS relationship make it possible to do things that other
protocols can not. admittedly a bit paranoid on my part.

> EIGRP apparently understands these kinds of layer two
configuration
> options,
> and adjusts its timers accordingly.

My only understanding of EIGRP's knowledge of layers 1 and 2
are driven by the obvious choices, namely the encapsulation
that is set, and the bandwidth statement involved.

There is another way to approach this issue, which is my
preferred method of resolving inconsistencies in the Cisco
documentation.  If time is available, I can set all of this up
in my lab and see exactly what happens.  It may not happen
today since there is a significant backlog of honey-do's that
are in the queue:-)  Still, it would be interesting to test.

CL: me too. sketch out a methodology, and I'll turn on the routers and see
what happens. although it could probably spend all day just trying to get an
SMDS multicast cloud to work. :->

That's my take on it all.  I could be wrong, but it seems
plausible.

HTH,

Paul Werner


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of
> Paul Werner
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Subject: EIGRP's interpretation of NBMA
and "disabling
> [7:14934]
>
>
> I read this a different way.  I interpreted the author's
> discussion of "physical multicasting" to mean multicast
> routing.  Multicast routing can be turned on and off
individual
> interfaces.  Moreoever, when you get to the discussion on CCO
> about optimizing multicast routing, there is this section:
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios11/c
> book/ciproute.htm#xtocid16743149
>
> I agree the wording could be better.  As far as disabling
> multicast from an interface, my gut reaction would be, why
> would you want to?
>
> HTH,
>
> Paul Werner
>
>
>
> > On Cisco's site, I've been searching for information as to
> when the
> > hello
> > interval is set to 5 seconds and when it is set to 60
> seconds.  Hellos
> > are
> > sent every 5 seconds except on low-speed, NBMA media.  Low-
> speed is
> > defined
> > as 1.544 Mbps and under.  No problems there.
> >
> > What I don't understand is this statement:
> >
> > "Note that for the purposes of EIGRP, Frame Relay and
Switched
> > Multimegabit
> > Data Service (SMDS) networks may or may not be considered to
> be NBMA.
> > These
> > networks are considered NBMA if the interface has not been
> configured to
> > use
> > physical multicasting; otherwise they are not considered
> NBMA."
> >
> > How can you configure an interface not to use multicasting?
> This is
> > something I haven't come across how to do yet.  Is this
> configuring
> > EIGRP
> > multicasts to use unicasts (I think I saw something like
that
> last night
> > but
> > I was too tired to comprehend it or even remember where I
saw
> it).
> >
> >
> >   -- Leigh Anne
>
> ________________________________________________
> Get your own "800" number
> Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
> http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14962&t=14962
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to