Subject: DVMRP, PIM and pruning

From: Istvan Tetenyi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 07:11:16 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear Colleagues,

We have a DVMRP tunnel to RIPE - Amsterdam that connects us to the MBONE.
Within Hungary we convert the DVMRP traffic to PIM /Cisco 10.3(7)/.

What I suspect is that the pruning is missing. Eg. once the broadcast
reached Hungary, there is no way to discard it from the stations that
are NOT listening on the PIM cloud. The result is the full MBONE traffic
that congests the circuits.

Has anyone encountered similiar problem ? Any help is appreciated.

Kind regards,
Istvan

===========================================================================
Istvan Tetenyi					e-mail:[email-masked]
Computer and Automation Institute		phone: +361-149-7532
H-1132. Budapest, Victor Hugo u 18-22		fax: +361-129-7866
Hungary
===========================================================================

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 11:09:53 +0300 (EET DST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 > that congests the circuits.
What happens is that pruning does not work up to the interoperability
point (that is your router running 10.3) from that point into your
network you should get pruning regardless of whether you run PIM-DM or
PIM-SM. (as long as you don't introduce mrouteds within the cloud)

Starting from 11.0(3.1) you get unidirectional pruning on the DVMRP side also.
(that is your router can successfully prune excess traffic coming in
 from the MBone but not the other way around)

 > Has anyone encountered similiar problem ? Any help is appreciated.
I tried to 'look around' but amsterdam1.ripe.net seems not to answer
to mrinfo requests...

Pete

---

From: Geert Jan de Groot <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 15:16:05 +0200

> I tried to 'look around' but amsterdam1.ripe.net seems not to answer

It should, but the interface you're looking at is on an exchange
whose prefix is not announced to the net (this is a problem in
general with doing mbone tunnels over an exchange). Anyway:

193.0.0.238 (amsterdam1.ripe.net) [version 3.8,prune,genid,mtrace]:
  193.0.0.222 -> 0.0.0.0 (local) [1/1/querier/leaf]
  193.148.15.68 -> 0.0.0.0 (local) [1/1/disabled]
  192.16.183.128 -> 192.16.183.80 (hef-router.nikhef.nl) [1/1]
  192.16.183.128 -> 192.16.183.64 (fwi-gw.fwi.uva.nl) [1/1]
  193.0.0.238 -> 0.0.0.0 (local) [1/1/disabled]
  193.0.15.130 -> 0.0.0.0 (local) [1/1/disabled]
  192.16.183.128 -> 192.16.191.120 (zeus.cwi.nl) [1/16/tunnel/leaf]
  193.148.15.68 -> 193.148.15.2 (broodjeham.surfnet.nl) [1/32/tunnel]
  192.16.183.128 -> 193.78.240.12 (sun4nl.NL.net) [1/16/tunnel/leaf]
  193.148.15.68 -> 147.32.1.4 (pklunx.cvut.cz) [1/64/tunnel/down/leaf]
  193.148.15.68 -> 192.84.229.72 (finci.iif.hu) [1/64/tunnel/down/leaf]
  193.148.15.68 -> 194.41.0.106 (mtc.iif.hu) [1/64/tunnel/down/leaf]

Geert Jan

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 21:37:20 +0300 (EET DST)

> general with doing mbone tunnels over an exchange). Anyway:
Thanks. I took a look around and figured out that there is one
additional reason: There is a mrouted attached to the hungarian cloud
that is connected to 10.3 Cisco router which does not understand DVMRP
prunes and therefore does not prune anything upstream. There is no
version of IOS available that would make this topology possible so the
best option is to give up the mrouted-leaf for now.

Pete

---

From: Istvan Tetenyi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 09:28:28 +0200 (MET DST)

On Sat, 1 Jun 1996, Petri Helenius wrote:
Thanks for the comments, advices.

> best option is to give up the mrouted-leaf for now.
Well, we are considering to upgrade the software of the router, at least
at the border. Mind you, our problem is that to upgrade several routers
with Cisco IOS 11.x might cause even bigger problems that we are having at
present.

On the other hand I am not sure at all that having an upgrade at the
border is enough. I am getting to believe that is has to be made at the
access ports. Which might involve extra expenditures for hw. upgrade.

Kind regards,
Istvan

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 11:34:33 +0300 (EET DST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 > with Cisco IOS 11.x might cause even bigger problems that we are having at
IOS 11.0 is pretty ok, don't run for the 11.1 since it's still
gathering it's bit's and pieces.

 > access ports. Which might involve extra expenditures for hw. upgrade.
As I previously mentioned you have to give up the mrouted leaf you
have in the network. That and upgrading the border to 11.0(8) should
do the trick. It does not hurt to upgrade the other devices also
specially if you don't have to spend any money on that.

Pete