Talk:Internet Group Management Protocol

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet Group Management Protocol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

From Talk:Internet group management protocol

This article should be merged into Internet Group Management Protocol. BenRG 19:01, 7 Oct 2003

Image

Please update the picture, jpegging it made it look awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.48.131 (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is PNG now and looks reasonable. SVG would be even better. -—Kvng 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the line for IGMP be between the router and the end host and not beteween the router and the switch, and then again between the switch and the end host? The switch doesn't talk IGMP -- well... it does snoop on the traffic and supresses certain messages when it sees a good reason for it, but still. Tommiie (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, showing it pass through the switch as the UDP/RTP does would be an improvement but if we made that change, we'd need to find a way to graphically express the snooping. ~Kvng (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

I have deleted the vast majority of this article on the basis of it being a blatant copyright violation (bolted together RFCs). The RFC license is not GFDL compatible. ed g2s • talk 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a description of the IGMP header information and fields isn't copyright?! This info is given my the majority of packet articles (e.g ipv4), so it would be useful to see that info here also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.111.105 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CV report looks good now. ([1] and [2] are clearly copies of this article.) ~Kvng (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linux

No longer in article ~Kvng (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The Linux operating system supports IGMP...." and other operating systems??? why is this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Group Management Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110115314/http://www.javvin.com/protocolIGMP.html to http://www.javvin.com/protocolIGMP.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]