That happens to be the page I've been looking at--that generated my query in
the first place.
I've looked and looked, and can't seem to find a reference for
01-00-0c-ee-ee-ee either.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Chuck Larrieu
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 6:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Multicasting - means what? [7:18232]
>
>
> you know, Leigh Anne, I recall seeing a CAM table in one of the
> documents I
> checked while I was researching you question. check out
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/473/22.html
>
> if you scroll down about half way, and look over the CAM table. Lo and
> behold, the spanning tree, CGMP, and CDP MACs are there, appearing in each
> of the vlans. there are a couple of other suspicious looking MACs there as
> well, but I can find no information referencing them. oh wait.
> Cisco shared
> spanning tree = 01-00-0c-cc-cc-cd
>
> still can't find a reference for 01-00-0c-ee-ee-ee
>
> Chuck
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leigh Anne Chisholm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 1:04 PM
> To: Chuck Larrieu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Multicasting - means what? [7:18232]
>
>
> Heck no Chuck... I don't mind you bringing it up. I think it's an
> interesting discussion. If you hadn't, and hadn't provided me with the
> information for me to remember the correct answer, I would have posted it.
> At any rate... with respect to your public and private emails to me:
>
> When CGMP is enabled on a switch, the switch adds the MAC address
> 01-00-0C-DD-DD-DD to its "cam system" table. By default, a switch only
> listen to multicast addresses in show cam system. I'd expect to
> see the MAC
> multicast address for Spanning Tree to be in there as well as you
> suggested
> in the private email.
>
> I believe that 01 is reserved for all multicast addresses. It's just that
> 01-00-5E-00-00-00 through 01-00-5E-7F-FF-FF have been reserved for IP
> multicast translation as you said in a private email to me. I don't think
> anyone's been playing "fast and loose" with this one. Just you
> and I had a
> blonde moment.
>
> Don't know about the Token Ring address for sure... I've **GOT** to get
> working on my current project because I'm **WAY** behind. But if you read
> it right to left, I see the first octet as 01...
>
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Chuck Larrieu
> > Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:48 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Multicasting - means what? [7:18232]
> >
> >
> > this post results from an off line conversation with someone regarding
> > multicasting. The original question follows:
> >
> > someone said:
> > CGMP: Router sends CGMP multicast packets to the switches at a
> well known
> > multicast MAC address: 01-00-0C-DD-DD-DD.
> >
> > Now by definition, if all multicast frames have a destination
> MAC address
> > beginning with "01-00-5E" - how does this address qualify as
> multicast? I
> > got this from http://www.cisco.com/networkers/nw99_pres/314.pdf a
> > networkers presentation.
> >
> > I've found other documents that reference this MAC address--but is this
> > really considered a multicast address?
> > end of quote
> >
> > let's see - unicast is intended for a single destination, broadcast is
> > intended for all destinations. does that mean that anything
> > intended really
> > or potentially for more than one destination, but not all
> > destinations, is a
> > multicast?
> >
> > I have the distinct impression that some folks somewhere are
> playing a bit
> > fast and loose with definitions. Is the spanning tree reserved mac
> > 01-80-C2-00-00-00 multicast? it can't be broadcast because it is not
> > destined for the FFFFFF mac. How about the token ring error
> monitor mac of
> > 03-00-00-00-00-10 ( this is the ethernet form of the address,
> according to
> > my source )
> >
> > Is CGMP really "multicast"? As opposed, maybe, to an ethernet
> > frame placed
> > onto the wire ( or issued out all ports ) for a specific
> purpose? Cisco's
> > own definition of multicast, "Single packets copied by the
> > network and sent
> > to a specific subset of network addresses" leaves a lot of
> wiggle room. is
> > Cisco talking about layer three "network" of layer two
> "network"? not that
> > Cisco's definition is necessarily related to industry standard
> > definitions,
> > as we all know from the numerous discussions about OSI here.
> >
> > Any comment? Are we counting angels again? :->
> >
> > Chuck
> > P.S. I hope the person who brought this up in private
> > correspondence doesn't
> > mind my posting here. I sanitized so as to protect the innocent, so to
> > speak. that person is a regular groupstudy participant, so will find out
> > what I have done sooner or later ;->
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=18270&t=18232
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
