Subject: Re: [magma] Question concerning IGMP snooping

From: Charlie Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:36:32 +0100

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:22:23 Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
> OK, so why allow static configuration?.... 
> <snip>
> (ii) So that I can force my switch to correctly send the IGMP
> membership reports to *all* the upstream switches/routers - given
> many switches don't have an upgrade path, this gives an opportunity to
> "fix" a "broken" switch/router behaviour.

On a related (and maybe clueless) note...

Given a simple network with two switches, each snooping, with host(s) on
each switch and a link between the switches, is is necessary to either
(a) run an IGMP router on each switch to provide detection or (b)
manually configure the 'link' port on each switch to forward IGMP
membership requests? 

Put another way, can the simple two switch network above 'work' without
manual configuration as described when dealing with switches that have
snooping but no IGMP router capability?

Is it possible for the IGMP snooper to send out IGMP router queries with
no side effect other than switch detection?

Newbie disclaimer: Please forgive me if I've missed something either in
the draft or the list archive, I'm only just getting my head around the
draft.

-- 
Charlie Wood

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

---

From: Charlie Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:36:32 +0100

-- 
Charlie Wood