wg-multicast - RE: Catalyst RGMP?
Subject: All things related to multicast
List archive
- From: Tsegreda Beyene <>
- To: "Wallace, Steven S" <>, "Alan Crosswell" <>, <>
- Subject: RE: Catalyst RGMP?
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:57:54 -0500
At 02:00 PM 11/11/2002 -0500, Wallace, Steven S wrote:
I would tend to disagree. If there are only routers connected to the
6509s, I would think that IGMP snooping should be turned off.
Steve, You should always turn on IGMP snooping on a 6500..
if you do not, then you are disabling the ASIC switching...
That is the implementation of the 6500.
Tsege
Turning
IGMP snooping on is going to just exercise the code that's looking for
IGMP host reports (non of which will be coming from the routers). I
understood RGMP to be Cisco proprietary solution to the problem you
describe, although I've never tried it. Having IGMP and RGMP turned off
should work just fine, although you will be flooding some of the
multicast traffic down links with no downstream listeners (which may be
just fine if that doesn't cause congestion).
Steven Wallace
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tsegreda Beyene
[mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:34 PM
> To: Alan Crosswell;
> Subject: Re: Catalyst RGMP?
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> comment inline please:
>
> At 02:26 PM 11/8/2002 -0500, Alan Crosswell wrote:
> >Anybody have experience with this? Is this what I want to use in
lieu
> >of the ability to do PIM snooping?
>
> No. Cisco does not do PIM snooping.
>
> >I have a dual-star L2 topology using
> Not that this will not work..I prefer point-to-point as opposed to
dual
> star.
>
> >Catalyst 6509 switches which my routers are each connected to. Right
> >now I have IGMP snooping disabled
>
> You should always enable IGMP snooping on the 6500..If you disable it
> you are basically disabling hardware switching.
>
> >on these switches since it seemed to
> >interfere with multicast connectivity and didn't make sense since the
> >only devices on the switch are routers so the only IGMP to snoop
would be
> >router advertisements.
> >
> >Maybe I should just not touch anything. It's sort of working
today:-)
>
> I will forward your e-mail to appropriate people and they will help
you
> out.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Tsege
>
> >/a
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, (continued)
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Peter John Hill, 11/10/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Alan Crosswell, 11/08/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Tsegreda Beyene, 11/08/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Alan Crosswell, 11/08/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Alan Crosswell, 11/11/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Toerless Eckert, 11/12/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Alan Crosswell, 11/12/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Peter John Hill, 11/12/2002
- re: Catalyst RGMP?, Jay Ford, 11/12/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Peter John Hill, 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Jan Novak (janovak), 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Tsegreda Beyene, 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Alan Crosswell, 11/12/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Toerless Eckert, 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Jan Novak (janovak), 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Alan Crosswell, 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Tsegreda Beyene, 11/12/2002
- RE: Catalyst RGMP?, Wallace, Steven S, 11/13/2002
- Re: Catalyst RGMP?, Toerless Eckert, 11/13/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.