Alexander Koch wrote: > > On Thu, 30 September 2004 15:06:47 +0200, Christian Jouas wrote: > > Andre, > > > > The faulty ports have all ISP's own switches behind ? > > > > Chris > > Does anyone or would anyone want to comment on whether the > parties affected are using switches? This sounds like STP > problem, but that is a mere guess as nobody really knows, > it seems.
I know for sure that at least some of the affected parties have their own switches connected to the TIX. Usually for the purpose of trunking towards a real router. Depending on the configuration of their switch they might 'shoot' each other down. The TIX Foundry doesn't run any spanning tree (explicitly disabled). When we had (confirmed) spanning tree problems the last time I put these multicast filters in there: multicast filter 1 any mac 0180.c200.0000 vlan 3 exclude-ports ethe 1/1 to 8/24 multicast filter 2 any mac 0100.0ccc.cccc vlan 3 exclude-ports ethe 1/1 to 8/24 multicast filter 3 any mac 0100.0c00.0000 vlan 3 exclude-ports ethe 1/1 to 8/24 multicast filter 4 any mac 0100.5e00.0005 vlan 3 exclude-ports ethe 1/1 to 8/24 Maybe I haven't catched enough stuff? Are there other harmful multicast MAC addresses to watch for? -- Andre _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
