From: Mohammed Shameen Abdul Jabbar (ccie.xpert@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2006 - 13:27:20 GMT-3
Hi,
Thankyou all for your reply.
Currently I am at my office, I will go home and post my configuration on
R2,R6 and BB1. The topology diagram that i drew turned out a little
different from what i wanted to depict. The ethernet 0/0 which is shown
wayward is connected to R3.
Anis , I will try the tunnel solution when i reach home. But as I had
referred in my initial posting, I do not have problems pinging
228.28.28.28from R6. Its only wen i try from BB1 i have issues.
Vikram , Between R2 and R6 I couldnt find any RPF issues. Everything working
as required.
Even though, I will post the configuration on R2 as soon as I reach home.
There is only one connection between R2 and R6 and that is from E0/0.26
interface on R6. The E0/0.6 interface on R6 is connected to Vlan6 .
Chris, I didnt understand about the concept of " no ip mroute-cache:
On 4/19/06, Vikram Dadlaney <vdadlaney@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I don't think unicast reachability is the issue over here. That config
> posted might be incomplete. The reason I think so is because if you look at
> the original post and the show ip mroute there is an entry on R6, which as
> per the diagram posted is connected to the BB, for the traffic coming from
> the backbone. 54.1.2.254 I believe is the ip of the backbone ethernet
> interface connected to R6. IMHO if unicast wasn't working I don't believe
> that entry would show up on R6. Please do correct me if this is incorrect.
> HTH
>
>
> Quote from Original Post
>
> Rack1R6#sh ip mroute
> IP Multicast Routing Table
>
> (*, 228.28.28.28), 00:08:07/stopped, RP 150.1.2.2, flags: SPF
> Incoming interface: Ethernet0/0.26, RPF nbr 132.1.26.2
> Outgoing interface list: Null
>
> *(**54.1.2.254* <http://54.1.2.254/>*,
**228.28.28.28*<http://228.28.28.28/>
> *), 00:00:30/00:02:38, flags: PT
> Incoming interface: Serial0/0, RPF nbr **0.0.0.0* <http://0.0.0.0/>
> * Outgoing interface list: Null
> *
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vikram
>
> On 4/19/06, Chris Lewis <chrlewiscsco@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > Forget that, you've probably got dynamic mappings. I'd check to make
> > sure all your PIM neighbors are setup first and simplify your config to
the
> > bare minimum and look at the output of debug ip mpack. You will probbaly
> > want to configure no ip mroute-cache on all PIM interfaces also.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 4/19/06, Chris Lewis <chrlewiscsco@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like you are using the physical interfaces for teh frame
> > > relay connection between BB1 and R6. If so, I would have expected to
see
> > > frame relay map statements in those interfaces.
> > >
> > > You won't get multicast connectivity until unicast is working!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/19/06, Vikram Dadlaney <vdadlaney@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Shameen,
> > > >
> > > > From your topology it doesn't seem like you have any alternate
> > > > paths. Can
> > > > you confirm this? Your OIL list on R6 is empty hence you are not
> > > > forwarding
> > > > the multicast traffic. Can you post the the configs of R2. Also have
> > > > you
> > > > tried clearing all your neighbors. The 'ip mroute' influences the
> > > > RPF check.
> > > > If you have multicast enabled on all interfaces than it should not
> > > > matter
> > > > but say you have an alternate path and you haven't enabled multicast
> > > > on that
> > > > but the unicast routing table is choosing that path than you will
> > > > have a RPF
> > > > failure. Please do let us know if the problem has been resolved.
> > > > HTH.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Vikram
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 01 2006 - 11:41:58 GMT-3