From: Brian (shotcaller30@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 21:02:56 GMT-3
Group,
Should I be able to consistently ping a multicast address from a cat5? I am
running dense-mode on an Ethernet segment with 2 routers. I have cgmp
enabled on the cat5, I have an ip igmp join group 224.8.8.8 on the ethernet
port of one of the routers. Should I be able to ping 224.8.8.8
consistently. The first ping is successful and it creates a static cam for
the multicast mac address, but the subsequent pings fail until the static
cam disappears again. Then it works again for one try.
Any ideas?
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve McNutt <lpd@jacksonville.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 6:37 PM
Subject: route redistribution (long)
> This email gives away key issues regarding ccbootcamp lab 7. if you
haven't
> done that lab but are planning to, you should not read this.
>
> This is regarding mutual redistribution at multiple points. earlier today
I
> was re-doing CCBootcamp lab 7 as it really gave me trouble the first time
I
> did it awhile back, and I wanted to see how much I have learned.
>
> Anyway, I came up with a solution that seems ok to me, but I though I
would
> check with the group and see if I've got my head screwed on straight on
this
> one.
>
> here is the diagram:
>
>
> [R3]
> ___ |s0.1,s0.2
> e0| ______|______
> | s0 { 306 | 206 ) s0 e0
> |--[R6]---{-----|-----}----[R2]---|
> | |s1 { 602 203 } |s1
> | | ------------- |
> ISDN | |
> | |s0 |s0
> |--[R5] [R1]
> |e0 |e0
> | |
> -----------|--------------
> |e0
> [R4]
>
>
> The network uses 10.x.x.x/16 with the exception of two loopbacks on r3(not
> shown) and the e0 of e2, with is a /24. there is a 0/0 route to r2's e0
> which has been redistributed into rip and ospf.
>
> r3 and r6, are on one subnet in the frame cloud, r3 and r2 are on a
> different subnet in the frame cloud.
> r6,r3 and r4 run ospf. r1,r5,r1 and r6 run rip. routing is disabled on
r4.
>
> r6 and r2 are performing mutual redistribution.
>
> my solution for handling redistribution on the ospf side was to bump the
> admin distance on OSPF external routes using the distance ospf external
> command, since all of the rip sourced routes are going to be e1 or e2 in
the
> ospf domain. To ensure the r3 was using the best path to the r6-r5 and
r2-r1
> links I used a route map on the redistribute command to tweak the metrics
> for those two subnets.
>
> on the rip side I just bumped the metric up a little on the redistribute
> ospf command.
>
> the solution produced an optimal routing environment with minimum effort.
> However, Marc russell's solution is to set the default admin distance for
> both protocols to be the same, and then use acls to explicitly lower the
> admin distance of routes sourced from the native routing domain. when/why
> would that be a better approach than my solution? are there pitfalls to
my
> solution? comments are appreciated.
>
> -s
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:45 GMT-3