wg-multicast - RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches
Subject: All things related to multicast
List archive
- From: "Richard Mavrogeanes" <>
- To: "Alan Crosswell" <>, <>
- Cc: "West Schoenfuss" <>
- Subject: RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:20:37 -0400
We've got several hundred mbps of multicast running 7x24 on our catalyst. I
believe you simply need to engage snooping, plus the catalyst has a very bad
artifact: there must be at least one receiver to each multicast or it floods.
We get around this by having our sources join their own multicast.
hope this helps
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Crosswell
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches
Does anybody know if there's a way to get link-layer IP multicast to do
the "right thing"? I discovered that my link-layer multicasts were being
flooded by my Catalyst 4000 switch. I think maybe this is just the way it
is since I would guess that by definition link-layer multicast doesn't ever
speak to the IGMP router.
I guess I will implement my subnet multicast with admin-scoped groups and
filters on my routers instead....
Comments, corrections, commissertaion? :-)
/a
- link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches, Alan Crosswell, 05/02/2002
- Re: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches, Bill Nickless, 05/02/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches, Richard Mavrogeanes, 05/02/2002
- RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches, Alan Crosswell, 05/02/2002
- RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches, Alan Crosswell, 05/02/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.