varun srivastava wrote:
> Hi ,
> Please answer query asked by me in following mail. It is urgent .
I'm on vacation and should probably do other things. I don't know why
this is so urgent, I've got lots of mails from you on this issue now...
Anyway, it appears you are using a link-local group, in which case it's
correct for the cisco to ignore the join.
Stig
> Regards
> Varun
>
> On 7/17/06, varun srivastava <varun.maillistid at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi ,
>> I have one cisco specific query. In cisco 7200 IOS 12.3(14T)
>> Topology src-a ------ rtr-a ------ cisco ------- rtb-b
>> if I'm sending ipv4 (S[src-a],G) join from rtr-b to cisco then it
>> creates a (S,G) state and send a (S,G) join to rtr-a, but if I'm doing
>> same thing over ipv6 cisco accepts the packet but doesn't send and
>> create (S,G) join to rta-a ... does cisco mentioned above have full
>> support for (S,G) ?
>> debug messages after receiving Join (S,G) packets are as follows.
>>
>>
>> 15:05:05: IPv6 PIM: Received J/P on FastEthernet3/0 from FE80:1::10
>> target: FE80:1::20 (to us)
>> 15:05:05: IPv6 PIM: J/P entry: Join root: 2FFE:2:0:1::1 group:
>> FF02:1::2 flags: S
>> 15:05:08: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel2,
>> changed state to up
>> 15:05:08: IPv6 PIM: Interface Tunnel2 is marked passive, not enabled
>> 15:05:08: IPv6 PIM: Interface Tunnel2 changed state to up
>> 15:05:08: IPv6 PIM: Interface Tunnel2 is marked passive, not
>> enabledConnection closed by foreign host.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> varun
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/11/06, Stig Venaas <stig.venaas at uninett.no> wrote:
>> > varun srivastava wrote:
>> > > Hi Nidhi,
>> > > I don't want to use any IGP . So in absence of IGP what are the
>> options
>> > > left ?
>> >
>> > Point is that router-b must do RPF on the BSR address in the BSM, so
>> > router-b needs a route for the global address used as BSR address.
>> >
>> > If you have global addresses on link between router-a and router-b,
>> then
>> > you should be ok (e.g. you use a /64 prefix for the link, and then by
>> > configuring the interfaces, router-b will have a route for router-a's
>> > address, they are both in the same /64).
>> >
>> > You might also add a static route on router-b, but the sane thing
>> (IMO),
>> > is to just do what I said above.
>> >
>> > Stig
>> >
>> > > My basic questions is :- if I am already advertsing relationship
>> > > between router-a link local address and router-a global address in
>> > > hello message then why an extra route entry [either thru IGP or
>> static
>> > > route] is needed to ask router to fwd router-a global address packets
>> > > to router-a link local address?
>> > > --
>> > > varun
>> > >
>> > > On 7/11/06, Nidhi Bhaskar <nbhaskar at cisco.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> > Hi,
>> > >> > I have following queries regarding using PIM-SM over IPv6.
>> > >> > consider the following topology
>> > >> >
>> > >> > <router-a>BSR/RP------------<router-b>----------<host-b>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > 1) In PIM BSR message from router-a I keep source address as link
>> > >> > local ipv6 address in ipv6 header, and I'm using one global ipv6
>> > >> > address to advertise as BSR address (as link local scope can
>> not be
>> > >> > advertised as global BSR). is this is correct ?
>> > >>
>> > >> That is correct.
>> > >>
>> > >> > 2) In this case I think we need to advertise global ipv6
>> address of
>> > >> > router-a in Hello message under option type 24. Now I think this
>> > >> > advertising of global ipv6 address as secondary address for the
>> link
>> > >> > local address should be enough. But when I'm sending Join/Prune
>> > >> > packets from host-b to router-b with RP address as global ipv6
>> address
>> > >> > of router-a then router-b is failing RPF check as it is not
>> getting
>> > >> > any link for global ipv6 address of router-a. Can you suggest what
>> > >> > extra should be done ?
>> > >>
>> > >> That is odd. What IGP are you running ? You shouldn't RPF fail on
>> > >> router-b for a directly connected IPv6 address. I suspect something
>> > >> may be broken in unicast routing. Make sure the interface on
>> which you
>> > >> have the global RP address configured is also enabled for your v6
>> > >> unicast routng protocol.
>> > >>
>> > >> Nidhi.
>> > >>
>> > >> > Note: router-b is cisco 7200 and if I explicitly add static
>> route for
>> > >> > router-a global ipv6 address then every thing works fine , so I
>> guess
>> > >> > problem is dynamic mapping of secondary global address to primary
>> link
>> > >> > local address of router-a.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > waiting for early help
>> > >> > Regards
>> > >> > Varun
>> > >> >
>> > >> > _______________________________________________
>> > >> > pim mailing list
>> > >> > pim at ietf.org
>> > >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > pim mailing list
>> > > pim at ietf.org
>> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
