From: ALL From_NJ (all.from.nj@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2009 - 12:58:15 ARST
Very cool! Many thanks for labbing this.
Not that Cisco's commands always make sense to me ... but this makes sense
IMO. I would however prefer the docs to state "greater to or equal to" the
configured TTL threshold. Would be a bit more accurate.
Oh well ... many thanks for labbing this. Rock on!
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Hobbs <deadheadblues@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have labbed this a few times. I made a post here just a couple days ago
> too:
>
> http://ccietobe.blogspot.com/2009/02/multicast-ttl-threshold.html
>
> Let me know what you think. I used high TTLs in my example but you
> should get the idea.
>
> Referring to Ruhann's task, according to the DocCD it would 12, but
> according to lab results it should be 13.
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:44 PM, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Can someone lab this up? I can tomorrow if no one else can. My thoughts
> on
> > an easy test:
> >
> > Use dense mode
> > R1 has igmp static groups for a far side interface
> > R2 has ttl threshold command with links to R1 and R3
> > R3 sends mcast ping. On R3, configure the ttl of the ping to increase
> with
> > each test.
> > Test ping first before moving on.
> >
> > Set the ttl threshnold on R2's link to R1. Increase the configured value
> > with each ping.
> >
> > The ttl threshold is looking at the outgoing packets ... what is the ttl
> of
> > the outgoing packet? By the time the packet is an 'outgoing' packet, the
> > ttl has already been reduced by one ... would be best to lab this though
> to
> > see the command in action. I can tomorrow if no one else has this
> > available.
> >
> > Also, if my quick test above is 'lame' ... please specify a better test
> and
> > I can try whatever you think is good tomorrow.
> >
> > From the docs:
> >
> > Usage Guidelines:
> > Only multicast packets with a TTL value greater than the threshold are
> > forwarded out the interface.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > TGIF. Have a good night team,
> >
> > Andrew Lee Lissitz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:15 AM, BALA <balavignesh002@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with Hobbs.
> >>
> >> The question is any thing lesser than 13 (13 should be permitted i
> guess)
> >> which mean from 12 to 1
> >>
> >> so the answer is 12.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Thanks & Regards
> >>
> >> Balavignesh R
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Lee Lissitz
> > all.from.nj@gmail.com
> >
>
-- Andrew Lee Lissitz all.from.nj@gmail.comBlogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:44:11 ARST