On (2010-08-24 11:57 +0200), Peter Rathlev wrote: > Hm... I thought "storm-control unicast" was exactly for _unknown_ > unicast. Otherwise it seems a little retarded (excuse my french). > Blocking/policing unicast as such isn't really helpful, is it? > > If it really is just unicast (and not unknown unicast) I understand now > why the 3560G blocked traffic.
First CSCO box to support policing unknown unicast is EARL7.5 but it is per chassis instead of per port. I'm not sure if any Cisco can support per port unknown unicast policing, but if Nexus7k/EARL8 doesn't do it, I'm betting there isn't any box which does it. It is one of the two big WTFs I have with Cisco switches, the 2nd is inability to limit port MAC count without also employing port-security, which murders convergency budget. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
