From: eicc tester (reto_ccie@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu May 24 2007 - 12:16:49 ART
Even in that case (no iGMP , no CGMP) , the broadcast and multicast can be handle different, you can implement mechanism like broadcast storm control on the switches, where the multicast packet are not restricted or controled like broadcast.
johngibson1541@yahoo.com wrote:
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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:22 ART