Ask the Expert: Understanding, Configuring and Troubleshooting IP Multicast and MVPN

[ciscomoderator]

Welcome to the Cisco Support Community Ask the Expert conversation. This is an opportunity to learn and ask questions about IP Multicast and Multicast VPN with Cisco expert Pulikkal Sekharan Raju. With Multicast VPN Cisco provides a practical solution to solve the challenge of manual configuration. MVPN architecture introduces an additional set of protocols and procedures that help enable a service provider to support multicast traffic in a VPN.  

Pulikkal Sekharan Raju is a customer support engineer in the High Touch Technical Support group for Cisco. He has over 13 years of experience in electronics and communications. His technical expertise is Border Gateway Protocol, Open Shortest Path First protocol, MPLS, Multicast, Multicast Virtual Private Network Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (MVPN L3VPN), and Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN). He has also served as a network engineer for CMC Ltd and a team lead for Remote Management Services. He holds a bachelor of technology degree in electronics and communications from M G University and holds CCIE certification (#25000).

Remember to use the rating system to let Pulikkal know if you have received an adequate response.  Pulikkal might not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Remember that you can continue the conversation on the WAN, Routing and Switching community sub-community in Network Infrastructure shortly after the event.

This event lasts through Friday May 31, 2013.

Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.

[Raju Sekharan]

Hi Giuseppe

I will check this and come back to you

Thanks

Raju

[Raju Sekharan · Accepted solution]

Hi Giuseppe

I can see that BGP Auto-discovery and BGP C-multicast Routing support added on 15.2(2)S

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipmulti_mvpn/configuration/15-s/imc_vpn_bgp_croute.html

These features should be availble on ASR1K

7600 Hardware  I am still checking if this is supported on it. Will update you back

Thanks

Raju

[Raju Sekharan · Accepted solution]

Hi

Also for transport, Juniper supports RSVP TE. But ASR1k does not support this but supports mLDP

Thanks

Raju

[Raju Sekharan · Accepted solution]

Hi Giuseppe

BGP AD and BGP c-Mc sig are not offcially supported on 7600

Thanks

Raju

[James Leinweber]

I'm struggling with multicast support on ASA 5520 firewalls.   Recently I upgraded some running a rather archaic 8.2(2) firmware to 9.0(2), in preparation for deployment of some new 5525-x's we bought.  In the old configuration I had

multicast-routing

interface Gi0/1

...

igmp forward interface outside

and an access-lists on the outside interface which allowed inbound UDP traffic with the relevant multicast destinations, particularly 239.0.0.0/24.

When I upgraded to 9.0(2), I threw in "no pim", and it broke.  However, allowing pim still is broken, as I'm winning the DR election with my upstream router (run by the UW-Madison), when I need to be losing.   The real PIM is taking place between the campus router and the campus RP; all I want to do is stub forwarding of IGMP v2 join messages from one LAN vlan through my firewall to the upstream router.

What does a working multicast configuration look like on ASA 9.0?  I have hideous memories of months of TAC cases back in the 7.0 days; in 8.2 it was comparatively easy.

-- Jim Leinweber, Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene

[Raju Sekharan]

Hi

Do you have any PIM RP-addres configuration on the ASA?

can you send me the following outputs from ASA

1. Show igmp groups

2. Show ip mroute

Thanks

Raju

[James Leinweber]

ASA 5520, firmware 9.0(2).  I have gone back to "no pim" on the outside interface; pim variations I have tried on the outside interface only:

   1) no pim

   2) pim, default pim values

   3) pim, dr-priority 0

I haven't tried seting a pim RP address; the upstream router knows that.  Multicast joins work from the transit network upstream of the firewall.

No "igmp access-group" or "pim neighbor-filter" restrictions are applied on any interfaces; it's all defaults.

The client interface on the inside  ("hm-lan") has:

   no pim

   igmp forward interface outside

The outside interface currently has:

  no pim

There are no explicity "mroute" statements in the configuration; supposedly multicast traffic should follow the unicast default route.

f-slh-hm# show igmp groups

-------------------------------

IGMP Connected Group Membership

Group Address    Interface            Uptime    Expires   Last Reporter

224.0.1.24       hm-lan               6d06h     00:03:43  144.92.84.29

226.178.217.5    hm-lan               1w1d      00:03:41  144.92.84.223

230.0.0.1        hm-lan               2d01h     00:03:39  144.92.85.6

239.192.83.80    hm-lan               05:49:34  00:03:41  144.92.85.36

239.255.255.250  hm-lan               6d02h     00:03:37  144.92.84.233

239.255.255.253  hm-lan               05:35:11  00:03:39  144.92.84.208

239.255.255.254  hm-lan               6d03h     00:03:37  144.92.84.29

f-slh-hm# show mroute

--------------------------------

Multicast Routing Table

Flags: D - Dense, S - Sparse, B - Bidir Group, s - SSM Group,

       C - Connected, L - Local, I - Received Source Specific Host Report,

       P - Pruned, R - RP-bit set, F - Register flag, T - SPT-bit set,

       J - Join SPT

Timers: Uptime/Expires

Interface state: Interface, State

(*, 224.0.1.24), 6d06h/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 6d06h/never

(*, 226.178.217.5), 1w1d/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 1w1d/never

(*, 230.0.0.1), 2d01h/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 2d01h/never

(*, 239.192.83.80), 05:49:54/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 05:49:54/never

(*, 239.255.255.250), 6d02h/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 6d02h/never

(*, 239.255.255.253), 05:35:31/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 05:35:31/never

(*, 239.255.255.254), 6d03h/never, RP 0.0.0.0, flags: DPC

  Incoming interface: Null

  RPF nbr: 0.0.0.0

  Immediate Outgoing interface list:

    hm-lan, Null, 6d03h/never

-- Jim Leinweber, WI State Lab of Hygiene

[Raju Sekharan]

Hi

I can see that the IGMP joins are reaching the ASA from your hm-lan interface

I am not an expert on ASA. but I think there is a way you can check if the IGMP packets are going out of the outside interface

have you cheked to see if multicast packets are leaving out of the outside interface

Thanks

Raju

[ldesmasures]

Hello Pulikkal,

We're using VRF-lite on catalyst 6500 with SUP2T  IOS 15.1(1)SY1 on a campus network.

We also import/export unicast prefixes using route-target and BGP for IPv4 and IPv6.

The other information is that we're using only one 6500 core switch (no external peering).

We want to use multicast (for video streaming) on our architecture using PIM and also export multicast prefixes from one VRF to another.

Is it possible ?

I saw the functionnality "Multicast VPN Extranet Support" but it seems that it's working only on MPLS (so no VRF-Lite).

Thanks.

[Raju Sekharan]

Hi

I don't think you can acheive this without configuring MDT which is not  possible in pure VRF-lite

Thanks

Raju

[Marwan ALshawi]

Dear

just interested to know from Design point of view which solution is recommend in which case or scenario and advantages/disadvantages of each in high level

mVPN + MPLS-TE bp2mp TE

mVPN + mLDP  p2mp,mp2mp ldp

mVPN + MDT

Thanks

[Raju Sekharan · Accepted solution]

New generation MVPN eveolved to meed the following requirements

Simplicity, managability, scalability,....

Label Switched Multicast  has following advantages over traditional GRE based MVPN

• Enables the use of a single MPLS forwarding plane for both unicast and multicast traffic.
• Enables existing MPLS protection (for example, MPLS Traffic  Engineering/Resource Reservation Protocol (TE/RSVP link protection) and  MPLS Operations Administration and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms to be  used for multicast traffic.
• Reduces operational complexity due to the elimination of the need for PIM in the MPLS core network.

. Both Mldp and P2P TE support a unified forwarding plane for unicast and multicast. They are hop-by-hop protocols. MLDP is receiver driven while P2MP is headend driven. MLDP is a suitable for generic MVPN, secondary video and consumer video distribution where the trees are dynamic and number of participants are larger. P2MP is suitable for primary and studio-to-studio distribution where the trees are static and the number of participants is smaller.

Here is a white paper for this

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6552/ps11505/whitepaper_c11-598929_v1.pdf

Thanks

Raju