From: sam s (samarth_04@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed May 23 2007 - 18:51:18 ART
Yes thats right the switch floods it to all ports except the one from which
it was received..Its better to combine igmp snooping with RGMP (if router
are present)...
>From: johngibson1541@yahoo.com
>Reply-To: johngibson1541@yahoo.com
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: ethernet multicast address 01-00-5E-xx-xx-xx benefits?
>Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:38:54 -0400
>
>If we don't have IGMP snooping and no CGMP and no MAC filtering exists,
>ethernet multicast address is not more beneficial than using
>ethernet broadcast address ffff.ffff.ffff right? Am I thinking straight?
>
>So, to live up to the full potential of the 01-00-5E-xx-xx-xx design,
>all switches of all brands should all have some IGMP snooping mechanism?
>
>Since the multicast addressed frames will be flooded out all switch
>ports by default without CGMP or IGMP snooping , without CGMP or IGMP
>snooping, 01-00-5E-xx-xx-xx does not cause any bandwidth conservation
>right?
>
>With a protected port with multicast blocking, ffff.ffff.ffff
>or 01-00-5E-xx-xx-xx doesn't make a difference right?
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:22 ART