From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Thu Dec 07 2006 - 18:38:41 ART
Yes, but that one is deprecated. Try this one instead:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat3560/12235se/scg1
/swtrafc.htm#wp1029319
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP)
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Narbik Kocharians
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:30 PM
> To: swm@emanon.com
> Cc: Noble; Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: Protected Ports
>
> 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
/s
> wtrafc.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
/s
> wtrafc.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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 07:50:37 ART