[c-nsp] %LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors
Feng Wang
Feng.Wang at telus.com
Fri May 6 14:11:02 EDT 2005
Anyone has idea how to fix this problem?
I have a Cisco 3512XL running Etherchannel with a Cisco 6509. The Etherchannel has two fastEthernet links.
There are "%LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors" log messages in 3512 side periodically:
May 5 14:39:52 pdt: %LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors
May 5 21:55:03 pdt: %LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors
May 5 22:40:37 pdt: %LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors
May 6 08:31:57 pdt: %LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors
May 6 09:17:03 pdt: %LINK-4-ERROR: FastEthernet0/1 is experiencing errors
And the interface on 3512 side reports CRC and overrun errors:
5 minute input rate 30426000 bits/sec, 5663 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 33608000 bits/sec, 7128 packets/sec
309548015 packets input, 2524293435 bytes
Received 35078 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
1479 input errors, 1479 CRC, 0 frame, 1649 overrun, 1649 ignored
There is no err reported on 6509 side.
And I also check the speed/duplex on both side, they are hardcoded as 100M/Full Duplex.
I suspect the port fa0/1 is defect in 3512 side. How do you think?
-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 10:28 AM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 30, Issue 28
Send cisco-nsp mailing list submissions to
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
cisco-nsp-owner at puck.nether.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cisco-nsp digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. 1800/2800/3800 series (Paul Stewart)
2. Re: Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch (Robert Hayden)
3. Re: 7600 Router Vlan / sub-interface question (Dave McGaugh)
4. Re: Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch (Alexander Koch)
5. Re: Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch (Saku Ytti)
6. Re: Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch
(Mikael Abrahamsson)
7. Re: 1800/2800/3800 series (?ukasz Bromirski)
8. Re: 1800/2800/3800 series (Brian Vowell)
9. Re: 1800/2800/3800 series (Paul Stewart)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:21:04 -0400
From: Paul Stewart <pauls at nexicom.net>
Subject: [c-nsp] 1800/2800/3800 series
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <427B9970.3040605 at nexicom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Anyone have any throughput specs on these in pps and mb/s ? Realistic..?
Looking at deploying a few of them with IP FW IOS to protect some nework segments... they seem like a nice choice.. might even try IOS IDS features on these...
Thoughts? More worried about throughput.... don't need a lot but don't want to buy 1800's and then find out their CPU is spiking..:)
Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCe5lwqMetgU57IuQRAnVCAJ9t0YoiXXy2Ko0xJuhGT7O1ZoR33gCgkjRD
lebxn5HhlKBH+NHFjueLJnY=
=P8S4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 11:27:51 -0500
From: Robert Hayden <rhayden at doit.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch
To: Steve Snodgrass <ssnodgra at pheran.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <427B9B07.7040505 at doit.wisc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
I think there's a new 4900 series with 2 10GB and a bucket oF 1GE.
We've been complaining for a while about the 3750 with the 10GE port.
We really wish the 16 ports were SFPs rather than copper. At least it could then become a good aggregator for a building with a 10GE uplink.
Robert Hayden
University of Wisconsin
Steve Snodgrass wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:31:38AM -0400, Stevens, Brant I. wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for a 1-1.5U 10G capable switch, preferably Cisco.
>>Looking through their website yields the 3750, but it only has 1
>>10GBase port and only 16 10/100/1000 ports <sarcasm> (REAL Useful)
>></sarcasm>. My guess this is so they don't cannibalize sales from the
>>4500 chassis-based boxes.
>
>
> There's also a 4948 with 2 10G ports and 48 1G ports. I'm not sure
> how many 10G ports you're looking for so this may or may not be useful to you.
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:28:00 -0700
From: Dave McGaugh <dmcgaugh at cac.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Router Vlan / sub-interface question
To: Ram S <linux_guy_76 at yahoo.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net, Colin Whittaker
<colin.whittaker at heanet.ie>, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
Message-ID: <2294F3AB-257E-455D-8819-E8ACA664BCD6 at cac.washington.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
I believe the VLAN mapping functionality is limited only to switchports. So no, it wouldn't be available on sub-interfaces since sub-interfaces are not permitted on switchports.
-Dave
On May 5, 2005, at 9:36 PM, Ram S wrote:
> Is vlan mapping functionality available on sub-interfaces ?
>
> Thanks,
> Ram.
>
> --- Dave McGaugh <dmcgaugh at cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think enabling descending allocation will fix his problem
>> (could be wrong). In my experience, regardless of the allocation
>> method used on the box, when you create a VLAN sub-interface, it will
>> internally use the same VLAN ID as that configured with the
>> "encapsulation dot1q <vlan>" command.
>>
>> Additionally, it might be worth pointing out that in an earlier
>> thread a few months back, having routed VLAN sub-interfaces are not
>> supported on many protocols other than MPLS in the 7600.
>>
>> The VLAN mapping functionality is probably going to get closest to
>> what he is looking for.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> On May 5, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Jeff Hood wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Try this:
>>> vlan internal allocation policy descending
>>>
>>> Only problem I think is that you have to reboot.
>>>
>> We did that on our
>>
>>> 7609 Sup720 3bxl. Works great...
>>>
>>> Jeff Hood
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/5/05, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:46:30PM +0100, Colin
>>>>
>> Whittaker wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vlan ids are global to the chassis, so you can't
>>>>>
>> do this.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> well, except in the case of the OSMs,
>>>>
>> those are full L3
>>
>>>> linecards and vlans are specific to them, but
>>>>
>> yes, otherwise vlans
>>
>>>> are global.
>>>>
>>>> try typing "sh vlan internal"
>>>>
>>>> - jared
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Down side of it being a swouter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:37:27PM +0200,
>>>>>
>> Danielsen.Peter
>>
>>>>> Christian PED wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any one, know if it's posible to add the same
>>>>>>>
>> vlan id on to
>>
>>>>>>> diffred
>>>>>>> sub interface, i get a error when trying, My setup looks like
>>>>>>> this, one 7609 connectet
>>>>>>>
>> to to Cisco 3550
>>
>>>>>>> switche,
>>>>>>> alle running Layer3, i need to use the same
>>>>>>>
>> vlan id on to or
>>
>>>>>>> more sub
>>>>>>> interfaces, all sub interfaces are Layer3
>>>>>>>
>> interfaces,
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My interface configuration on the 7609 is..
>>>>>>> interface GigabitEthernet3/2
>>>>>>> description 3550-S1
>>>>>>> no ip address
>>>>>>> no ip proxy-arp
>>>>>>> spanning-tree portfast trunk
>>>>>>> !
>>>>>>> interface GigabitEthernet3/2.2
>>>>>>> encapsulation dot1Q 2
>>>>>>> ip vrf forwarding VRF00001
>>>>>>> ip address 172.31.7.85 255.255.255.252 no ip proxy-arp !
>>>>>>> interface GigabitEthernet3/2.4
>>>>>>> encapsulation dot1Q 4
>>>>>>> ip vrf forwarding VRF0002
>>>>>>> ip address 172.30.7.85 255.255.255.252 no ip proxy-arp !
>>>>>>> interface GigabitEthernet3/3
>>>>>>> description 3550-S2
>>>>>>> no ip address
>>>>>>> no ip proxy-arp
>>>>>>> spanning-tree portfast trunk
>>>>>>> !
>>>>>>> interface GigabitEthernet3/3.2
>>>>>>> encapsulation dot1Q 2
>>>>>>> ip vrf forwarding VRF00003
>>>>>>> ip address 172.32.7.85 255.255.255.252 no ip proxy-arp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If i try to add encapsulation dot1Q2 on
>>>>>>>
>> sub-interface
>>
>>>>>>> GigabitEthernet3/3.2, i get the following
>>>>>>>
>> error,
>>
>>>>>>> 7609(config-subif)#encapsulation dot1Q 2 Command rejected: VLAN
>>>>>>> 2 not available 7609(config-subif)#
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any one know how to get this to work !! ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /PED_DK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
>>>>>> www.kmd.dk www.kundenet.kmd.dk www.eboks.dk
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> www.civitas.dk www.netborger.dk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hvis du har modtaget denne mail ved en fejl vil
>>>>>>
>> jeg gerne, at du
>>
>>>>>> informerer mig og sletter den.
>>>>>> KMD skaber it-services, der fremmer
>>>>>>
>> effektivitet hos det
>>
>>>>>> offentlige, erhvervslivet og borgerne.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you received this e-mail by mistake, please
>>>>>>
>> notify me and
>>
>>>>>> delete it. Thank you.
>>>>>> Our mission is to enhance the efficiency of the
>>>>>>
>> public sector
>>
>>>>>> and improve its service of the general public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list
>>>>>>
>> cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>
>>>>>> archive at
>>>>>>
>> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Colin Whittaker colin.whittaker at heanet.ie
>>>>>
>> Tel: +353 1 6609040
>>
>>>>> HEAnet NOC noc at heanet.ie
>>>>>
>> iNOC-DBA: 1213*752
>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list
>>>>>
>> cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>
>>>>> archive at
>>>>>
>> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> jared at puck.nether.net
>>>> clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My
>>>>
>> statements are
>>
>>>> only mine.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>
>>>> archive at
>>>>
>> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>> archive at
>>>
>> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at
>> http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 18:31:09 +0200
From: Alexander Koch <efraim at clues.de>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <20050506163109.GA951 at shekinah.ip.tiscali.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:27:51 -0500, Robert Hayden wrote:
> I think there's a new 4900 series with 2 10GB and a bucket oF 1GE.
any pointers?
> We've been complaining for a while about the 3750 with the 10GE port.
> We really wish the 16 ports were SFPs rather than copper. At least it
> could then become a good aggregator for a building with a 10GE uplink.
Yeah, but that is not 10G what you can get out of these. And I wonder what (if any) limitations the 1000TX ports have.
Alexander
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 19:59:24 +0300
From: Saku Ytti <saku+cisco-nsp at ytti.fi>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <20050506165924.GB19239 at ytti.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On (2005-05-06 11:27 -0500), Robert Hayden wrote:
> We've been complaining for a while about the 3750 with the 10GE port.
> We really wish the 16 ports were SFPs rather than copper. At least it
> could then become a good aggregator for a building with a 10GE uplink.
<AOL>me too</AOL> told it to my account team already, unfortunately according to them either there is no such bun in the oven or then that BU is just being quiet about it's future releases.
--
++ytti
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 19:02:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Recommendations for 10GBase-Capable switch
To: "Stevens, Brant I." <brant.stevens at hcmny.com>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0505061854150.17957 at uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Stevens, Brant I. wrote:
> I haven't worked with Foundry in quite some time, but the FastIron
> Workgroup Switches seem to fit the task. Any experiences, positive, or
> negative? You can reply off-line, and I'll summarize to the list.
For non-cisco, you might want to look at the Extreme Networks Summit 450.
2*Xenpak, 20*SFP, 4*dual personality, or the other way around (20*1000TX).
The Cisco 4948 uses X2 optics which I think is weird since all other Cisco
10GE is Xenpak.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 19:12:56 +0200
From: ?ukasz Bromirski <lbromirski at mr0vka.eu.org>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 1800/2800/3800 series
To: Paul Stewart <pauls at nexicom.net>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <427BA598.4060702 at mr0vka.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed
Paul Stewart wrote:
> Anyone have any throughput specs on these in pps and mb/s ? Realistic..?
Here it is:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/765/tools/quickreference/routerperformance.pdf
> Looking at deploying a few of them with IP FW IOS to protect some nework
> segments... they seem like a nice choice.. might even try IOS IDS
> features on these...
It's now called IPS, as it works in-line.
Some other figures, including VPN performance are here:
http://groups.google.pl/groups?q=bromirski+vpn+1841&hl=pl&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&selm=cq8s2o%243ga%241%40inews.gazeta.pl&rnum=2
> Thoughts? More worried about throughput.... don't need a lot but don't
> want to buy 1800's and then find out their CPU is spiking..:)
It depends on feature load besides pure IP routing. Remember
1841 is officially rated as T1/E1 full-service.
--
this space was intentionally left blank | ?ukasz Bromirski
you can insert your favourite quote here | lukasz:bromirski,net
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 10:24:17 -0700
From: Brian Vowell <brian at zipsend.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 1800/2800/3800 series
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <427BA841.9080706 at zipsend.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
We were running both a 2811 and a 2821 with BGP, IPS, CBAC, and ACL's,
and it crashed at least three or four times per day. I currently have
ten or eleven cases open and logged against a bug in the CBAC code that
is currently assigned to the development engineer.
The only thing that we could do to stop these crashes was to disable
both IPS and CBAC on the router.
I'd recommend that you stick with something more stable like a 2621XM
until a few more releases come out to fix this problem, unless you want
to be doing QA for Cisco with your network.
Regarding throughput, we max out at about 73 mbps on the 2821 on a
single gigabit interface. Anything above that, and the router starts
dropping packets and we lose our BGP sessions when the BGP packets get
dropped. I need to do some work to setup some QoS for BGP to make sure
that doesn't happen. (Our peering and transit are on the same interface).
--b
Paul Stewart wrote:
> Anyone have any throughput specs on these in pps and mb/s ? Realistic..?
>
> Looking at deploying a few of them with IP FW IOS to protect some nework
> segments... they seem like a nice choice.. might even try IOS IDS
> features on these...
>
> Thoughts? More worried about throughput.... don't need a lot but don't
> want to buy 1800's and then find out their CPU is spiking..:)
>
> Paul
>-------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 13:27:07 -0400
From: Paul Stewart <pauls at nexicom.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 1800/2800/3800 series
To: Brian Vowell <brian at zipsend.net>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Message-ID: <427BA8EB.3090503 at nexicom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks for the info Brian (and everyone who responded). Our needs are
quite simple at this point but like everything, I'm sure it will
evolve..:)
Brian Vowell wrote:
| We were running both a 2811 and a 2821 with BGP, IPS, CBAC, and ACL's,
| and it crashed at least three or four times per day. I currently have
| ten or eleven cases open and logged against a bug in the CBAC code that
| is currently assigned to the development engineer.
|
| The only thing that we could do to stop these crashes was to disable
| both IPS and CBAC on the router.
|
| I'd recommend that you stick with something more stable like a 2621XM
| until a few more releases come out to fix this problem, unless you want
| to be doing QA for Cisco with your network.
|
| Regarding throughput, we max out at about 73 mbps on the 2821 on a
| single gigabit interface. Anything above that, and the router starts
| dropping packets and we lose our BGP sessions when the BGP packets get
| dropped. I need to do some work to setup some QoS for BGP to make sure
| that doesn't happen. (Our peering and transit are on the same interface).
|
|
|
| --b
|
| Paul Stewart wrote:
|
|
|>Anyone have any throughput specs on these in pps and mb/s ? Realistic..?
|>
|>Looking at deploying a few of them with IP FW IOS to protect some nework
|>segments... they seem like a nice choice.. might even try IOS IDS
|>features on these...
|>
|>Thoughts? More worried about throughput.... don't need a lot but don't
|>want to buy 1800's and then find out their CPU is spiking..:)
|>
|>Paul
|
|
|
|>-------------------------
|
|
|>_______________________________________________
|>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
|>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
|>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
| https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
| archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCe6jrqMetgU57IuQRAj0tAJ9JCZA0TeuikpYy8YAqMchpW6JeEwCeIso7
arQqCmqf30JmX/IahtH7mK8=
=I2DV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list
cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
End of cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 30, Issue 28
*****************************************
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list