Re: [c-nsp] IGMP differences between c3560 c4948 - Update!

2010-05-03 Thread Mark Tinka
On Saturday 10 April 2010 05:31:23 pm vince anton wrote: ive been doing some work in the lab with igmp and pim on 3560 and 4948 and they seemed to behave differently. i'd like to see if anyone on the list has had similar experiences or if im getting something wrong, or hitting any bugs.

Re: [c-nsp] IGMP differences between c3560 c4948

2010-04-13 Thread vince anton
The behavior you describe sounds correct. IGMP snooping depends on IGMP traffic in order to have something to snoop. Without an IGMP querier, you can only count on the initial (unsolicited) IGMP host report. There might be no other traffic, rendering IGMP snooping is totally helpless. It

Re: [c-nsp] IGMP differences between c3560 c4948

2010-04-12 Thread cheddar cheese
I think if you have a router upstream configured for PIM you won't need to configure the switch as the querier On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote: Said Vince: On the C3560, with default config, i believe igmp snooping is enabled by default. A multicast

Re: [c-nsp] IGMP differences between c3560 c4948

2010-04-11 Thread Christopher.Marget
Said Vince: On the C3560, with default config, i believe igmp snooping is enabled by default. A multicast source floods all traffic to all ports in the vlan, until I configure 'ip igmp snooping querier' at which point the flooding stops. I would have expected igmp snooping to figure out that

[c-nsp] IGMP differences between c3560 c4948

2010-04-10 Thread vince anton
Hi ive been doing some work in the lab with igmp and pim on 3560 and 4948 and they seemed to behave differently. i'd like to see if anyone on the list has had similar experiences or if im getting something wrong, or hitting any bugs. On the C3560, with default config, i believe igmp snooping