cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
534
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies

configuring two Multicast RPs on same router for diff multicast group

s4sandyad
Beginner
Beginner

Dear all...

As captioned in title line.. we have one router in our network, having one rp 10.1.250.250 which is mapped with 4 multicast group...what working fine.

As per our new requirement, we want to use same router for one another rp address e.g. 10.1.250.251 which will be mapped with  2 diff multicast group.

we have used ip pim rp-address 10.1.250.250 command. as i will use same command with diff rp add it will override over old one. right ?

so how can i achieve this??? i tried multiple google docs but didn't find any exact useful doc. Please guide me.... or suggest short n simple doc...

S@ndy...

3 Replies 3

chrihussey
Collaborator
Collaborator

Yes you can have two RPs on the same router and define which multicast groups are to be assigned to each with ACLs. If there is an overlap there will be issues.

Here's a sample config:

!

access-list 7 permit 239.0.3.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 9 permit 239.0.4.0 0.0.0.255

!

ip pim rp-address 10.10.7.32 7
ip pim rp-address 10.10.7.64 9

!

Hi chrihussey

Thanks once again...

it means ip pim rp-address y.y.y.y will not override on old ip pim rp-address x.x.x.x ??

both can be work same time only mapped acl should not be overlap... right

Can you share any doc what can explore all this thing with illustration...plz

Admittedly, I can't find any documentation on this specific scenario, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

There may be other views, but in a sparse mode environment the RP is defined by the "ip pim rp-address" command being configured on all the routers.  In truth, the RP router doesn't know it is the RP until it receives packets for sources to register or receivers to join. Whether it goes to one IP or another on the router shouldn't make a difference.

So if you have two loopback interfaces on one router and the RPs defined with ACLs, registers and joins for one group should go to one loopback and the other group to the other.

Hope I'm not steering you in the wrong direction and understand wanting to see the actual documentation. It is a little unusual but, again I can't see why it wouldn't work.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Recognize Your Peers