NM - More alarming than flooding to each port on the VLAN I'm afraid .
1. Router "A" receives a PING request ,(meant to be unicast but flooded to all due to 03XX Mac). The static entry leads to "A" putting the packet back to the VLAN (decrementing the TTL)
2.This is then received by Router "B" . And the cycle continues with "B" bouncing the packet and decrementing the TTL , until we hit 0.
3.Of course the initial Ping request has also gone to router "B" so the process is also initiated by B.
Good fun ??
Earlier discussions on this problem suggested config-if > ip multicast ttl-threshold 1 as a get round , but it made no difference.
Putting a static CAM entry on the 6509s works in so far as stopping the erroneous traffic , and thanks for the tip - BUT I can't use it - The cluster is supposed to load balance requests as well as provide resilience - The two servers forming the cluster are on separate 6509s The static entry will prevent either .
I may have to resort to putting the two servers into a hub , then onto a single swith port, but it's a "messy get round".
If you have the static ARP entry and the only two devices that are interested in the 03-xx-xx addresses are off of two ports, you could simply create a filter that allows only those two ports to receive traffic destined for the servers. Or you could simply stop the routers receiving the traffic (ie if the packet has a local source address forward to the router; if it's a remote source address, do not forward to the router). Either method would work.
As an aside the use of multicast MAC addresses is explicitly disallowed in RFC1812 Section 3.3.2 states a router MUST not believe an ARP response that claims a link layer broadcast or multicast address. So the application breaks the rules a bit!
This document gives several answers on frequently asked questions for PFRv3 channel state behavior.
Q1: What are all the channel operational states from a BR (border role) perspective and what are the rules/conditions to be in each st...
The need was to reach an host inside a LAN through a VPN connection managed by the LAN gateway (Cisco 1921).
The LAN gateway performs NAT and there was a dedicate nat rule for the host i wanted to reach through VPN.
I couldn't connect to the hos...
We have 3 identical switches configured by someone else and would like to claim some of the Gigabit ports(G1/G2/G3/G4) for use on servers. When we try to change the wiring and configuration, we run in to connectivity issues. Attached is a des...