From: Jason Madsen (madsen.jason@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2008 - 16:56:52 ART
Although a secure address can't be seen on more than one port, only the HSRP
Active interface should advertise its virtual MAC...I believe. Don't have a
switch to test with at the moment to confirm.
Jason
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Jason Madsen <madsen.jason@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yep, a port security violation occurs when either the MAC limit is exceeded
> OR when a secure address is seen in more than one interface.
>
> Here's some Cisco doc' on it:
>
> "* A security violation occurs when the maximum number of secure MAC
> addresses are in the address table and a station whose MAC address is not in
> the address table attempts to access the interface or when a station whose
> MAC address is configured as a secure MAC address on another secure port
> attempts to access the interface."*
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:47 PM, ccie <ccie@just-horizon.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Experts,
>>
>> Once I tried to configure the same mac address on two secure port it is
>> considered a port security violation?? Even if the maximum limit didn't
>> reached yet.
>>
>> And that is the case that cause port security violations triggered once a
>> two ports with HSRP enabled on them? While it work perfect with the
>> standby
>> use-bai.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Amin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:54 ART