From: Narbik Kocharians (narbikk@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2006 - 15:29:54 ART
Unbelievable
On 12/7/06, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
> You may want the 3560 docs instead just for giggles, but they're very
> similar.
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3560/12225see/scg/swtrafc.htm#wp1029319
>
> Scott
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Narbik Kocharians [mailto:narbikk@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:12 AM
> *To:* Noble
> *Cc:* swm@emanon.com; Cisco certification
> *Subject:* Re: Protected Ports
>
>
> You can read a little more about it here.
>
>
> http://cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3750/12114ea1/3750scg/swtrafc.htm#1104913
>
>
> On 12/7/06, Noble <noble.ccie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> >
> > On 12/7/06, Scott Morris < swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> > > These are two completely different concepts.
> > >
> > > The "switchport block" commands have to do with altering the typical
> > > behavior of a bridge/switch. While normally a switch keeps a cam
> > table to
> > > associate MAC addresses to outbound ports, every once and a while a
> > frame
> > > shows up with a MAC not in the list. The behavior is to flood these
> > frames
> > > out every port in the corresponding VLAN to assure delivery.
> > >
> > > The "switcport block" commands alter this behavior and tell the switch
> > NOT
> > > to do this for the interface tagged.
> > >
> > > "Switchport protected" on the other hand is the private-vlan edge
> > concept
> > > (pre-private-vlan, or 3550 implementation). Any two ports tagged as
> > > "protected" within a single VLAN will never speak with each other via
> > > unicast, broadcast or multicast directly at Layer2.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> > JNCIE
> > > #153, CISSP, et al.
> > > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> > > IPExpert VP - Curriculum Development
> > > IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> > > smorris@ipexpert.com
> > > http://www.ipexpert.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > Noble
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:49 AM
> > > To: Cisco certification
> > > Subject: Protected Ports
> > >
> > > Hi Group,
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand the need of adding "switchport block
> > multicast"
> > > and "switchport block unicast" along with "switchport protected".
> > >
> > > I understand that traffic arriving on one protected port will not be
> > > forwarded out other protected ports. If this is the case why would we
> > need
> > > to block multicast and unicast using switchport block command.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > -Noble
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thank you,
> >
> > -Noble
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Narbik Kocharians
> CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
> CCSI# 30832
> Network Learning, Inc. (CCIE class Instructor)
> www.ccbootcamp.com (CCIE Training)
>
-- Narbik Kocharians CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security) CCSI# 30832 Network Learning, Inc. (CCIE class Instructor) www.ccbootcamp.com (CCIE Training)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 07:50:37 ART