On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 20:25 +0100, Niccolò Belli wrote: > Il 04/03/2012 18:07, Peter Rathlev ha scritto: > > That would be never, since that's not an E or X model. > > Oh that sounds bad, I didn't think Cisco considered the WS-C3560-24PS-E > as a low end device :(
I wouldn't call it low end, at least not among (user) access switches which is where RA Guard would make most sense. But the "original" 3560 has more or less been superseded by the -E and -X models. It's probably a priority thing for Cisco. But since we have no real hard facts, someone need to ask their AM what status really is. You can always use a manual traffic-filter: ipv6 access-list Deny-RA deny icmp any any router-advertisement permit ipv6 any any exit ! interface GigabitEthernet0/1 ipv6 traffic-filter Deny-RA in ! That should work just as well as RA Guard. (Beware that neither this nor "RA Guard" probably solves draft-gont-v6ops-ra-guard-evasion.) -- Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
