From: Mas Kato (loomis_towcar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Oct 21 2001 - 18:17:27 GMT-3
[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text]
Charles,
The "Organization-Local Scope" is 239.192.000.000-239.251.255.255.
Reference: http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
and RFC 2365: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2365.txt?number=2365
Regards,
Mas Kato
https://ecardfile.com/id/mkato
> "Charles Huang" <CharlesNY2000@yahoo.com>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Re: multicast tipDate: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:57:45 -0400
>Reply-To: "Charles Huang" <CharlesNY2000@yahoo.com>
>
>Does anybody know the reserved private multicast address range ? like the priv
ate address for IP in
>RFC 1918 ?
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>
>To: "Brant Stevens" <branto@myrealbox.com>
>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:48 PM
>Subject: Re: multicast tip
>
>
>> People seem to use it anyway... ;-) And for every one we see I'm sure
>> there are 10 times that out there where people do the same thing but
>> then try another address (that isn't reserved) and it works. It was
>> just a fyi so people don't make the simple mistake we see.
>>
>> B.
>>
>> Brant Stevens wrote:
>>
>> >224.0.0.x is a reserved address group...
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>
>> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>> >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 11:18 AM
>> >Subject: multicast tip
>> >
>> >
>> >>The previous discussion about multicast made me think about a problem I
>> >>see occasionally and I thought I'd pass it along. Don't use anything in
>> >>the 224.0.0.x range for a multicast address. It will work fine if the
>> >>source and destination are in the same vlan (unless you're using one of
>> >>the reserved addresses, such as 224.0.0.10 for eigrp, which would
>> >>probably wouldn't be a good thing to do... ;-). The reason it doesn't
>> >>work when routing multicast is the 224.0.0.x is a "link-local" address,
>> >>it never gets forwarded off the local segment, you will never get ip
>> >>multicast for 224.0.0.x to work across a router unless you bridged it
>> >>(haven't tried it but it should work).
>> >>
>> >>Most people wouldn't use 224.0.0.x but I see it happen occasionally and
>> >>wanted to help save some people the grief of troubleshooting the problem
>> >>if you used that range of addresses by mistake. Another common problem
>> >>in production networks is many multicast servers have a default ttl of 1
>> >>and, since one of the first things a router does is decrement the ttl by
>> >>one, the packets get dropped at the router. The solution is to increase
>> >>the ttl of the multicast server to be at least one higher than the
>> >>number of hops to the furtherest multicast receiver.
>> >>
>> >>Brian
>> >>
>> >>p.s. in case anyone was wondering, the previous e-mail with my comment
>> >>about mutlicast being on by default was referencing a discussion about
>> >>NLSP, not ip multicast (the part about NLSP was further down in the
>> >>e-mail thread).
------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Racer's Official Virtual Pit Stop.
http://www.speedracerdsl.com/speedracer/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:23 GMT-3