[c-nsp] upgrade firmware on Cat6k / CatOS modules?
Sukumar Subburayan
sukumars at cisco.com
Thu Dec 28 18:55:12 EST 2006
In my lab, regardless of whether the port is connected or not, I see the
'port_speed' at '2' when the port is in 100 or auto. Only time it goes to
'1' is when the speed is hard-coded to 10.
You may want to check this when you try to recreate..
sukumar
switch(enable) show port 1/1
* = Configured MAC Address
# = 802.1X Authenticated Port Name.
Port Name Status Vlan Duplex Speed Type
----- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------ -----------
------------
1/1 notconnect 1 half 10
10/100BaseTX
port_speed = 1
port_duplex = 1
trunk_status = 2
dot1q_all_tagged= 1
switch (enable) show port 1/1
* = Configured MAC Address
# = 802.1X Authenticated Port Name.
Port Name Status Vlan Duplex Speed Type
----- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------ -----------
------------
1/1 notconnect 1 auto auto
10/100BaseTX
port_speed = 2
port_duplex = 2
trunk_status = 2
switch (enable) show port 1/1
* = Configured MAC Address
# = 802.1X Authenticated Port Name.
Port Name Status Vlan Duplex Speed Type
----- -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------ -----------
------------
1/1 notconnect 1 half 100
10/100BaseTX
port_speed = 2
port_duplex = 2
trunk_status = 2
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:21:11AM -0800, Sukumar Subburayan wrote:
>>> - is "Fw:" relevant in any way after the switch has booted (available
>>> documentation seems to suggest that this is only boot code)
>>
>> No, the 'Fw:' is not relevant after the switch is booted.
>
> Thanks. So the module might just be funny. (Which is not a big problem,
> as we don't *have* to use it for channels, if it doesn't like them).
>
>>> At this point we're not actually trying to get the channel on 5/31+7/31
>>> to work (we're happy with 5/31+3/34), we're just trying to understand
>>> the issues involved, and what might cause a difference between
>>> modules 5 and 7.
>>
>> OK, since you are not trying to get channeling work between 5/31 & 7/31,
>> this may not interest you. But, if you want to go further here are some
>> suggestions.
>
> Well, it's always good to understand *why* things are happening :)
>
>> Was the errdisable due to channel misconfig?
>
> I don't think so. CatOS (7.x) doesn't permit grouping ports to a channel
> that are not configured identically anyway. To be sure, I explicitely
> checked both ports (trunk, duplex/speed, native vlan, allowed vlan, etc.)
> and couldn't see any differences.
>
>> Was there any other syslogs printed?
>
> CatOS printed things similar to this:
>
> switch(enable)> set port enable 7/31
> 2006 Dec 22 23:32:13 UTC +00:00 %DTP-5-TRUNKPORTON:Port 7/31 has become dot1q trunk
> 2006 Dec 22 23:32:15 UTC +00:00 %DTP-5-NONTRUNKPORTON:Port 7/31 has become non-trunk
>
> "and that's it". Port goes up, port goes down, back to errdisable.
>
> IOS printed something about DTP and VTP (clock not synced), before seeing
> the port go up and down again:
>
> 05:04:30: %DTP-5-DOMAINMISMATCH: Unable to perform trunk negotiation on port Fa0/24 because of VTP domain mismatch.
> 05:04:31: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/24, changed state to up
> 05:04:33: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthernet0/24, changed state to up
> 05:04:36: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface FastEthernet0/24, changed state to down
> 05:04:37: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface FastEthernet0/24, changed state to down
>
> [The VTP mismatch could be the cause of the problem, but it could as well
> be a red herring... both switches are set to VTP transparent, VTP pruning
> is disabled. The VTP message went away when the port was set to
> "switchport nonegotiate", but the channel still refused to come up]
>
>
> When trying to enable the ports "7/31 first, 5/31 second", this is what
> happened:
>
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:22 UTC +00:00 %DTP-5-TRUNKPORTON:Port 7/31 has become dot1q trunk
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:25 UTC +00:00 %SPANTREE-6-PORTLISTEN: Port 5/31,7/31 (agPort 13/16) state in VLAN 83 changed to listening
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:25 UTC +00:00 %SPANTREE-6-PORTLISTEN: Port 5/31,7/31 (agPort 13/16) state in VLAN 94 changed to listening
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:27 UTC +00:00 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 5/31,7/31 (agPort 13/16) state in VLAN 94 changed to forwarding
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:28 UTC +00:00 %SPANTREE-6-PORTFWD: Port 5/31,7/31 (agPort 13/16) state in VLAN 83 changed to forwarding
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:35 UTC +00:00 %SYS-6-CFG_CHG:Module 5 block changed by telnet/195.30.1.100/gert
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:40 UTC +00:00 %DTP-5-TRUNKPORTON:Port 5/31 has become dot1q trunk
> 2006 Dec 22 23:36:42 UTC +00:00 %DTP-5-NONTRUNKPORTON:Port 5/31 has become non-trunk
>
> (IOS side looks similar)
>
>> If you just had allowed vlan list to say vlan 1-10 (instead of
>> the entire 1K vlan) on both sides and then try channeling does it work?
>
> This is what "show trunk" says:
>
> asc0> sh trunk 5/31
> * - indicates vtp domain mismatch
> # - indicates dot1q-all-tagged enabled on the port
> Port Mode Encapsulation Status Native vlan
> -------- ----------- ------------- ------------ -----------
> 5/31 nonegotiate dot1q trunking 94
>
> Port Vlans allowed on trunk
> -------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5/31 83,94
>
> Port Vlans allowed and active in management domain
> -------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5/31 83,94
>
> Port Vlans in spanning tree forwarding state and not pruned
> -------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5/31 83,94
>
>
> - we never tried with "all VLANs active".
>
> IOS side looks like this:
>
> interface FastEthernet0/23
> switchport trunk native vlan 94
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 83,94
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport nonegotiate
> channel-group 1 mode on
> interface FastEthernet0/24
> switchport trunk native vlan 94
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 83,94
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport nonegotiate
> channel-group 1 mode on
> interface Port-channel1
> switchport trunk native vlan 94
> switchport trunk allowed vlan 83,94
> switchport mode trunk
> switchport nonegotiate
> end
>
>
>> To me the problem seem to be some parameters between slot 7 and other slot
>> ports din't agree.
>>
>> If the problem can be recreated we can look at 'show agc mod/port..' for
>> both the ports and see what the etherchannel internal port datastructure
>> is.
>
> The channel in question is in production now, so we can't fiddle with
> it right now. Checking "show agc 5/31" and "7/31" right now (ports *not*
> configured into the same channel!) gives differences in admin_group and
> vlan_num, and port_speed:
>
> 5/31:
> admin_group = 61
> vlan_num = 94
> port_speed = 2
> 7/31:
> admin_group = 60
> vlan_num = 731
> port_speed = 1
>
> - admin_group and vlan_num are to be expected, port_speed is a bit
> confusing (both ports set to auto/auto), but that could be a consequence
> of "one port has a link and one hasn't".
>
> We'll (try to) recreate this tomorrow with a lab 2950 and different
> ports on the 6509, module 5 and 7, so we can run more experiments.
>
> gert
> --
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
> //www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025 gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list