wg-multicast - RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches
Subject: All things related to multicast
List archive
- From: Alan Crosswell <>
- To: "Richard Mavrogeanes" <>
- Cc: "Alan Crosswell" <>, <>, "West Schoenfuss" <>
- Subject: RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches
- Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:45:35 EDT
> 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
>
Are you doing link-layer multicast? When I switched to admin-scoped,
even with no viewers on the local subnet there was no flooding.
/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.