Re: A secure port cannot be a protected port

I guess this (the doc being wrong) might come from some architectures
not being able to handle both fns at once.
Don't assume that because it works in one, it works everywhere.
It might even depend on IOS version...

-Carlos

S Malik @ 19/04/2009 2:05 -0200 dixit:
> As per table, secure port & protected are compatible. Thanks for the
> reference and to every one for taking time to answer my question.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com> wrote:
>
>> Malik,
>>
>> I don't think you should have any problem configuring it. I wasn't able to
>> find the text you're referring to, but I was able to find this table for
>> 12.2(25)SEB and 12.2(44)SE:
>>
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3550/software/release/12.2_44_se/configuration/guide/swtrafc.html#wp1184775
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of S
>> Malik
>> Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:15 PM
>> To: Cisco certification
>> Subject: A secure port cannot be a protected port
>>
>> As per Cisco's documentation "A secure port cannot be a protected port",
>> However, I could configure port-security & switchport protected on an
>> interface on 3550 switch.
>>
>> Can any explain please?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Malik
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net