RE: Well Known Multicast Addresses

From: Scott Morris (smorris@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sat Mar 14 2009 - 16:11:27 ARST

Next message: Pradeep Chandrashekaran: "A quick Qs on OSPF"
Previous message: Scott Morris: "RE: E1 Vs N OSPF routes"
Maybe in reply to: Nick: "Well Known Multicast Addresses"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

But the TTL becomes irrelevant if devices aren't allowed to propogate the
group beyond the local link segment. So you can call it TTL 1, 2, 48 or 255
but it's still not going anywhere. ;)

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Wouter Prins
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 10:13 AM
To: Scott Morris
Cc: Bob Sinclair; Dale Shaw; Nick; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: Well Known Multicast Addresses

2009/3/14 Scott Morris <smorris@internetworkexpert.com>

> Check out the RFC's.
>
> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2365.txt
>
> They are defined as link-local scope, so everyone must comply!
>
>
Scott,

Not everyone has to comply i guess, why is VRRP using a TTL of 255 as a
security measure when its part of the link-local scope? :)

-- Wouter Prins wp@null0.nl 0x301FA912

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net

Next message: Pradeep Chandrashekaran: "A quick Qs on OSPF"
Previous message: Scott Morris: "RE: E1 Vs N OSPF routes"
Maybe in reply to: Nick: "Well Known Multicast Addresses"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 06 2009 - 06:44:05 ART