<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Multicast Q</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.networkingblog.in/multicast-q-2-9857/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.networkingblog.in/multicast-q-2-9857</link>
	<description>Cisco Netpro Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:07:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kumar</title>
		<link>http://www.networkingblog.in/multicast-q-2-9857/comment-page-1#comment-10874</link>
		<dc:creator>Kumar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkingblog.in/?p=9857#comment-10874</guid>
		<description>The point of having a switch usually would be that it would be VLAN 802.11q aware, and take care of VLAN tagging.
If you use a hub, if you&#039;re running 802.11q VLANs, the NICs will have to be 802.11q aware.
If it&#039;s vanilla ethernet, then Bob&#039;s your uncle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--INFOLINKS_ON-->The point of having a switch usually would be that it would be VLAN 802.11q aware, and take care of VLAN tagging.<br />
If you use a hub, if you&#8217;re running 802.11q VLANs, the NICs will have to be 802.11q aware.<br />
If it&#8217;s vanilla ethernet, then Bob&#8217;s your uncle.<!--INFOLINKS_OFF--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kumar</title>
		<link>http://www.networkingblog.in/multicast-q-2-9857/comment-page-1#comment-10873</link>
		<dc:creator>Kumar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkingblog.in/?p=9857#comment-10873</guid>
		<description>thank you for the quick response....
the hub would be dedicated for the multicast traffic
only 2 ports would be used.. 1 for router B and the other for router C</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--INFOLINKS_ON-->thank you for the quick response&#8230;.<br />
the hub would be dedicated for the multicast traffic<br />
only 2 ports would be used.. 1 for router B and the other for router C<!--INFOLINKS_OFF--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arul</title>
		<link>http://www.networkingblog.in/multicast-q-2-9857/comment-page-1#comment-10872</link>
		<dc:creator>arul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:21:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.networkingblog.in/?p=9857#comment-10872</guid>
		<description>A hub will work, but of course all traffic on all hub ports is contending for the same bandwidth, so performance may suffer if you have other devices on the hub.
 A switch configured for multicast would give better performance since the multicast, as well as unicast  traffic, would only be sent out ports where needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--INFOLINKS_ON-->A hub will work, but of course all traffic on all hub ports is contending for the same bandwidth, so performance may suffer if you have other devices on the hub.<br />
 A switch configured for multicast would give better performance since the multicast, as well as unicast  traffic, would only be sent out ports where needed.<!--INFOLINKS_OFF--></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

