Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

wg-multicast - RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches

Subject: All things related to multicast

List archive

RE: link-layer IP multicast vs. L2 switches


Chronological Thread 
  • 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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page