From: Paul Dardinski (pauld@marshallcomm.com)
Date: Fri Jun 30 2006 - 17:48:48 ART
So, using the static snooping entry would forward the traffic, but the
static mac table addressing wouldn't?
-----Original Message-----
From: David Timmons [mailto:masterdt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 4:30 PM
To: Paul Dardinski; Cisco certification
Cc: yan.anchipolovskiy@prudential.com
Subject: RE: Multicast question
Hi,
If IGMP snooping is disabled, the switch will get the
multicast traffic. It will then lookup the MAC in its
cam table for a match. Now, without your cam entry,
the switch will flood the multicast out of every
interface except the one the traffic was received on.
So, without the entry, that interface and every other
interface would get the multicast traffic. So, I don't
think the CAM solution is allowing the multicast
forwarding; however, it does help to minimize the
number ports that will get the traffic.
dt
--- Paul Dardinski <pauld@marshallcomm.com> wrote:
> 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