Subject: RE: [magma] TTL field handling by IGMP Proxy/Snooping switch

From: "David Mastropolo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:59:36 -0700

Santosh i do not know if anyone replied to you directly about this.

The data stream should not be ttl decremented when passing through a snoop
enabled switch. You will find that a pim enabled router should and will
decrement the ttl of the data stream as it passes hop to hop through the pim
based network.

The igmp snoop switch is primarily pruning a L2 switched domain. As such,
there is no routing or multicast routing involved.

This is our implementation. 

As you know the igmp packets themselves must have a ttl of 1. As the snoop
switch forwards and/or proxies Leaves and Joins to the mrouter(s), the ttl
is also not decremented.

DaveM

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 10:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [magma] TTL field handling by IGMP Proxy/Snooping switch

Hello All,

While forwarding Multicast Data packets, should a IGMP Proxy / Snooping
switch decrement the TTL field ?

Thanks,
Santosh

*Disclaimer*
"This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain trade
secrets or privileged or undisclosed information. They may also be
subject to copyright protection. Please do not copy, distribute or
forward this email to anyone unless authorized. If you are not a named
addressee, you must not use, disclose, retain or reproduce all or any
part of the information contained in this e-mail or any attachments. If
you have received this email by mistake please notify the sender
immediately by return email and destroy/delete all copies of the email."

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