All things related to multicast

["Lucy E. Lynch" <>]

Bill -

We'e seeing some oddities in multicast routing (inbound announcements)
can you send an mtrace?

Lucy E. Lynch                           Academic User Services
Computing Center                        University of Oregon

                (541) 346-1774/Cell: 912-7998

see:

Mtrace from 128.223.214.24 to 192.35.169.7 via group 224.2.246.13
Querying full reverse path... * switching to hop-by-hop:
  0  ? (192.35.169.7)
 -1  ? (192.35.169.1)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -2  tor-gigapop.onet.on.ca (206.248.63.1)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -3  tor-c3-gsr.onet.on.ca (205.211.94.233)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -4  c3-torcor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.210)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -5  c3-ottcor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.150)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -6  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.154)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -7  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
 -8  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -9  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-10  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-11  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-12  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-13  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-14  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-15  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-16  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-17  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-18  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-19  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-20  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-21  * * c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)  PIM  thresh^ 1  RPF
Interface
-22  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
-23  Mtrace from 192.35.169.6 to 205.189.32.177 via group 224.2.246.93
Querying full reverse path...
  0  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.177)
 -1  c3-moncor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.154)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
Reached RP/Core
 -2  c3-ottcor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.153)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
Reached RP/Core
 -3  c3-torcor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.149)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
Reached RP/Core
 -4  c3-ontgig01.canet3.net (205.189.32.209)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
Reached RP/Core
 -5  tor-gigapop.onet.on.ca (205.211.94.234)  PIM/BGP4+  thresh^ 0
 -6  ? (206.248.63.2)  PIM  thresh^ 0
 -7  ? (192.35.169.6)
Round trip time 14 ms; total ttl of 6 required.

Waiting to accumulate statistics...Results after 9 seconds:

  Source        Response Dest    Overall     Packet Statistics For Traffic
From
192.35.169.6    192.35.169.7     Packet      192.35.169.6 To 224.2.246.93
     v       __/  rtt   14 ms     Rate       Lost/Sent = Pct  Rate
192.35.169.1
206.248.63.2    ?
     v     ^      ttl    2       142 pps        0/145  =  0%  16 pps
206.248.63.1
205.211.94.234  tor-gigapop.onet.on.ca
     v     ^      ttl    3       307 pps       -7/145  = -4%  16 pps
205.211.94.233
205.189.32.209  c3-ontgig01.canet3.net Reached RP/Core
     v     ^      ttl    4       316 pps        1/152  =  0%  16 pps
205.189.32.210
205.189.32.149  c3-torcor01.canet3.net Reached RP/Core
     v     ^      ttl    5       573 pps       -1/151  =  0%  16 pps
205.189.32.150
205.189.32.153  c3-ottcor01.canet3.net Reached RP/Core
     v     ^      ttl    6       720 pps        0/152  =  0%  16 pps
205.189.32.154  c3-moncor01.canet3.net Reached RP/Core
     v      \__   ttl    7      1059 pps        ?/152         16 pps
205.189.32.177  192.35.169.7
  Receiver      Query Source

Mtrace from 192.35.169.6 to 205.189.32.178 via group 224.2.246.93
Querying full reverse path... * switching to hop-by-hop:
  0  c3-nyccor01.canet3.net (205.189.32.178)
 -1  * * *
 -2  * * *
 -3  * * *
 -4  * * * ...giving up
Timed out receiving responses


On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Bill Owens wrote:

> Is anyone else seeing it? We have considerable loss on all four
> streams (video and audio), worst on the MPEG-1 video.
>
> Bill.
>