From: Antonio Soares (amsoares@netcabo.pt)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2009 - 14:12:00 ARST
Both will work. Both solutions will filter IGMP Joins from the clients.
But if there is already another multicast feed reaching the clients, the Multicast Boundary will stop that feed immediately.
The igmp-join solution will stop that feed only after the igmp group expires.
So in my opinion, the 1st solution is better. At least in the real-world, maybe not in the lab :)
Regards,
Antonio Soares, CCIE #18473 (R&S)
amsoares@netcabo.pt
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of GAURAV MADAN
Sent: sexta-feira, 20 de Fevereiro de 2009 15:03
To: Cisco certification
Subject: access-group Vs multicast boundary in this case
Hi All
I have a case which says :
R4
| f0/0
|
CLIENTS
These clients shd only recieve feeds for groups 225.25.25.25 and
226.26.26.26
I answered :
Rack1R4(config-if)#do sh ip access-li
Standard IP access list 17
10 permit 225.25.25.25
20 permit 226.26.26.26
int f0/0
ip multicast boundary 17
!
2nd solution
---------------------
Let these clients join these 2 grps only
int f0/0
ip igmp access-grp 17
!
Let me know if and why sol 1 is wrong ?
Gaurav Madan
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:44:12 ARST