From: Paul Dardinski (pauld@marshallcomm.com)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2006 - 17:13:35 ART
Thanks David.
The goal is to enable the multicast flooding out the port. Assume that
ip igmp snooping is disabled on the vlan, would both cases would allow
multicast packet forwarding?
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
David Timmons
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:04 PM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Multicast question
hmm,
I think the IP IGMP snooping command is going to
enable IGMP snooping and make your interface a member
of the defined multicast group. When you create a
static cam entry you just tell the switch where to
forward the traffic; this will prevent the flooding
out of all ports. So, I don't think the CAM entry
assisted with the sending of multicast traffic;
although, it would reduce the broadcast traffic seen
on the other ports of the switch. If the goal was to
make an interface a member of a multicast group, I
would think the cam method is a stretch.
--- Paul Dardinski <pauld@marshallcomm.com> wrote:
> Rack1SW2(config)#mac address-table static
> 0100.5e01.0203 vlan 10 int
> f0/16
>
>
>
> Rack1SW2(config)#ip igmp snooping vlan 10 static
> 0100.5e01.0203 int
> f0/16
>
>
>
>
>
> Are these two statements equivalent? Assuming
> ingress mcast traffic to
> the vlan, will both forward traffic out f0/16?
>
>
>
> PD
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:34 ART