If a multicast server is connected to a Cisco Switch running CGMP, and
several hosts are connected to the same switch, will a router turn off the
switch ports for the users that are not requesting the multicast?
So, will CGMP work back towards the multicast server?
Fears
Message Posted at:
If by turn off the port you mean not send the multicast stream to that port
then yes. Assuming you have it configured correctly.
""Fears Michael S SSgt 50 CS/SCBBN"" wrote
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If a multicast server is connected to a Cisco Switch running CG
y 31, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
> If a multicast server is connected to a Cisco Switch running CGMP, and
> several hosts are connected to the same switch, will a router turn off the
> switch ports for the users that are not requesting the
Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 8:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
Michael,
Of course this would depend on if the multicast server and the
host connected on the same switch was assigned t
y 01, 2002 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
> Nigel, Thanks, Yes the switch and users are all on the same VLAN. PIM and
> IGMP
> are working fine across the router and into other CGMP enable switches.
> The thing I was not sure of, w
IL PROTECTED]
Illinois Century Network http://www.illinois.net
(217) 557-6555
> -Original Message-
> From: Fears Michael S SSgt 50 CS/SCBBN
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: multicast / CGMP towa
the multicast stream
>
>A good title as recommended by a number of folks on the list is Developing
>IP Multicast Networks
>Author: Beau Williamson. ISBN: 157870779
>
>HTH
>
>Nigel
>
>
>
> Original Message -
>From: "Fears Michael S SSgt
Priscilla,
You are correct. Thanks for the added insight.
Nigel
- Original Message -
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
To:
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
> No offence, but that a
an confirm that.
Priscilla
>- Original Message -
>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>To:
>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:03 PM
>Subject: Re: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
>
>
> > No offence, but that answer doesn't remove the qu
p which is not supported in
IGMPv1.
> > > >This way the host is able to notify the source of it's intent to
leave
> >the
> > > >multicast group. This is will allow the routers to prune the
multicast
> > > >traffic from the segment removing the unnecessary
router regarding which ports should receive the
> > multicast flow. Hopefully someone can confirm that.
> >
> > Priscilla
> >
> >
> > >- Original Message -
> > >From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Fri
making any sense? It's late. ;-)
> >
> > My guess it that the answer is still that CGMP is smart. Once you
>configure
> > it, the switch knows to not do its normal multicast flooding and instead
> > wait to hear from the router regarding which ports should
. The
router dynamically modifies the switch MAC table through CGMP messages.
CM
- Original Message -
From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
> At 06:18 AM 2/2/02, Nigel
: Re: multicast / CGMP towards the multicast server [7:33964]
> At 06:18 AM 2/2/02, Nigel Taylor wrote:
>
> >Even in an design where the host and the server reside on the same
> >VLAN(segment) IGMP and CGMP still provide the ability to control flooding
> >of multicas
Michael,
CGMP does not have a concept of the multicast source (unlike the
multicast routing protocol) and therefore the fact that the source is on
the same link as the router should not change standard CGMP operation --
associating the CAM table with the various multicast groups.
- Tom
In artic
15 matches
Mail list logo
