wg-multicast - Re: My question
Subject: All things related to multicast
List archive
- From: Toerless Eckert <>
- To: Greg Shepherd <>
- Cc: John Zwiebel <>, Marshall Eubanks <>, ,
- Subject: Re: My question
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:42:03 -0700
The need to use AutoRP or BSR i think comes up when you want to
have redundancy but you don't want to have MSDP for anycast-RP and it
comes up when you want to do address scoping and as such want to
have multiple different RPs.
Cheers
Toerless
P.S.: And of course the best option is SSM ;-)
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:50:39PM -0700, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, John Zwiebel wrote:
>
> > I agree with you shep. Except now you assume the network was
> > planned thoroughly and you leave no room for easily changing
> > things.
>
> Sure, but if you have to re-number in a way that forces you to change your
> RP address, your problems are much bigger than your multicast config. ;-)
>
> Greg
>
> > YAHOO. The folks on this list have to make their own choices.
> > Each of the options outlined have pluses and minuses.
> >
> > The "best" option is still SSM. ;-) (I know you agree with that.)
> >
> > On 9/4/02 2:44 PM, "Greg Shepherd"
> > <>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Small enterprises, with few routers may find static RP the right way.
> > >>
> > >> Any enterprise larger than 20 routers, will want to use either
> > >> the BSR or auto-RP to provide management. And if they are growing
> > >> and getting reconfigured often, then again, BSR or auto-RP
> > >
> > > I disagree. Having MORE routers releying on BSR or Auto-RP sounds MUCH
> > > worse than having only a few.. Setting aside a pool of /32s used for
> > > RouterIDs is just part of good network design. Pick one
> > > of them as your RP address and it should NEVER need to change. Sure, it
> > > may move to a different router, but the /32 RP address stays the same.
> > > Then setting static RP mapping for this /32 into every router is no more
> > > work than setting-up and other RP mapping mechanism. AND the extreme
> > > reduction in trouble-shooting time down the road will be greatly
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > Think 'reduction in complexity' and sleep well. ;-)
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
- Re: My question, (continued)
- Re: My question, Jay Ford, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Greg Shepherd, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Tony Rimovsky, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, John Zwiebel, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Marshall Eubanks, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Brent Sweeny, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, John Zwiebel, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Greg Shepherd, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, John Zwiebel, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Greg Shepherd, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Toerless Eckert, 09/04/2002
- Re: My question, Marshall Eubanks, 09/04/2002
- Re: Configuring an RP, Pavlin Radoslavov, 09/04/2002
- Re: Configuring an RP, John Zwiebel, 09/04/2002
- multicast over layer 2 core, Mark Boolootian, 09/25/2002
- Re: multicast over layer 2 core, Peter John Hill, 09/25/2002
- Re: multicast over layer 2 core, John Meylor, 09/25/2002
- Re: multicast over layer 2 core, Mark Boolootian, 09/25/2002
- Re: Configuring an RP, John Zwiebel, 09/04/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.