From: A.gs (amran.gs@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2008 - 14:15:53 ARST
I guess the clue would be in the question and how it was asked, if it said
"prevent users from accessing (or joining) 224.x.y.z, then I still see this
being acheived by both methods.
Im having trouble of reading the clues (in the question) as when to use one
over the other.
On 2/26/08, shiran guez <shiranp3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sadiq
>
> igmp filter will not preven PIM, they are not the same! with IGMP filter
> you
> only control hosts not routers.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Sadiq Yakasai <sadiqtanko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Andy,
> >
> > I understand where you are comin from. They could be used in a similar
> > fashion to achieve the same result (not getting the traffic to go out
> > an interface).But the way they are used to achieve the same result
> > differs.
> >
> > By not allowing IGMP joins from an interface, you would not even have
> > this router send out a PIM join upstream towards the RP in sparse mode
> > PIM and hence you are controlling the MCast traffic flow for those
> > groups you have blocked in your IGMP filter access list.
> >
> > Whereas directly using the MCast bounday acts on the actual traffic
> > destined for any MCast IP addresses (as well as filtering Auto-rp
> > messages).
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Sadiq
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Shiran Guez
> MCSE CCNP NCE1
> http://cciep3.blogspot.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/cciep3
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2008 - 16:54:49 ARST