On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Phil Mayers <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 04/28/2011 06:48 PM, Peter Rathlev wrote: > > I'm not deeply familiar with audits like these, but if they're seriously >> asking for port-security on infrastructure ports they have IMHO >> misunderstood something. User facing ports: yes maybe. Infrastructure >> ports: no. >> > > Sadly, in my experience a complete lack of understanding on the auditors > part does not necessarily reduce their power to compel you. You need really > good, words-of-one-syllable explanations to convince them why you can't do > something. And even that may not help :o( You may be able to use something like this with maximum interface GigabitEthernet2/22 description PortDesc switchport switchport access vlan 2 switchport mode access switchport port-security switchport port-security maximum 8 switchport port-security aging time 5 switchport port-security aging type inactivity no cdp enable spanning-tree portfast edge spanning-tree bpduguard enable ! Regards Andrew _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
