- Community Home
- >
- Networking
- >
- Legacy
- >
- Switches, Hubs, Modems
- >
- PCM+ vs. Trunks
Switches, Hubs, and Modems
1752679
Members
5287
Online
108789
Solutions
Forums
Categories
Company
Local Language
юдл
back
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Forums
Discussions
юдл
back
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Blogs
Information
Community
Resources
Community Language
Language
Forums
Blogs
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-23-2005 01:41 AM
тАО06-23-2005 01:41 AM
PCM+ vs. Trunks
Hi,
I'm having problems with PNM+ (or PCM+ or whatever it's acronymed today) identifying Trunks (static ones, no LACP or FEC) as such. In my case there are (besides a bunch of other devices):
- A 4108gl and a 4104gl
- Two 3400cl-24G
Both of the 3400cl have a Trunk (consisting of two 1000baseT links) to the 4108gl, one 3400cl has an additional Trunk (two 1000baseSX) to the 4104gl. What I'm observing in the Network Map:
- One of the 3400cl-4108gl trunks is not showing up at all. The fact that this is an RSTP blocked link is probably not a coincidence. I still expect it to show up, though as a dotted line as usual.
- The other 3400cl-4108gl trunk shows up in the correct color for a trunk, but the balloon help description is incorrect. It states the trunk goes "from Port: Trk3[C2,D2] (2000Mbps)" on the 4108gl "to Port: 19 (1000Mbps)" on the 3400cl.
- The 3400cl-4104gl trunk shows the same misbehavior, it is colored as a trunk but port assignment on the 3400cl side is wrong.
I would consider the latter two as a display glitch if it wouldn't break the VLAN discovery and network mapping. It appears that on every such trunk, the VLAN discovery only sees a connection for the VID 1 (DEFAULT_VLAN). In all other VLANs (there are seven more tagged ones on all the ISLs including the trunks), the connections are broken, the 4108gl (which is connected by nothing but the trunks in question) even is left as an unmapped device.
The 4100gl as well as the 3400cl are at the latest firmware and freshly rebooted. They were also deleted from PNM+ and newly discovered just to be sure.
PNM+ is 1.60 with patch A.
TIA,
Andre.
I'm having problems with PNM+ (or PCM+ or whatever it's acronymed today) identifying Trunks (static ones, no LACP or FEC) as such. In my case there are (besides a bunch of other devices):
- A 4108gl and a 4104gl
- Two 3400cl-24G
Both of the 3400cl have a Trunk (consisting of two 1000baseT links) to the 4108gl, one 3400cl has an additional Trunk (two 1000baseSX) to the 4104gl. What I'm observing in the Network Map:
- One of the 3400cl-4108gl trunks is not showing up at all. The fact that this is an RSTP blocked link is probably not a coincidence. I still expect it to show up, though as a dotted line as usual.
- The other 3400cl-4108gl trunk shows up in the correct color for a trunk, but the balloon help description is incorrect. It states the trunk goes "from Port: Trk3[C2,D2] (2000Mbps)" on the 4108gl "to Port: 19 (1000Mbps)" on the 3400cl.
- The 3400cl-4104gl trunk shows the same misbehavior, it is colored as a trunk but port assignment on the 3400cl side is wrong.
I would consider the latter two as a display glitch if it wouldn't break the VLAN discovery and network mapping. It appears that on every such trunk, the VLAN discovery only sees a connection for the VID 1 (DEFAULT_VLAN). In all other VLANs (there are seven more tagged ones on all the ISLs including the trunks), the connections are broken, the 4108gl (which is connected by nothing but the trunks in question) even is left as an unmapped device.
The 4100gl as well as the 3400cl are at the latest firmware and freshly rebooted. They were also deleted from PNM+ and newly discovered just to be sure.
PNM+ is 1.60 with patch A.
TIA,
Andre.
3 REPLIES 3
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО06-29-2005 11:54 PM
тАО06-29-2005 11:54 PM
Re: PCM+ vs. Trunks
Hello Andr├Г┬й,
Similar here: trunk not visible between two 5308xl systems. Resolved after manual rediscovering in PCM (so: not through nnm) and so forcing the ip address to default vlan. Regards, Gi
Similar here: trunk not visible between two 5308xl systems. Resolved after manual rediscovering in PCM (so: not through nnm) and so forcing the ip address to default vlan. Regards, Gi
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-06-2005 05:10 AM
тАО07-06-2005 05:10 AM
Re: PCM+ vs. Trunks
Andre,
I've been doing some testing with similar equipment on PCM 2.0. I am not done with my testing but so far PCM has correctly discovered the trunk, added the correct color to the link between the 3400 and 4100 plus correctly represented the blocked port with the dashed lines.
However when you mouse over the trunk link between the 3400 and 4100 the speed is not correctly represented. This is a known issue and the PCM lab is working on a fix for 2.0.
-Hector
I've been doing some testing with similar equipment on PCM 2.0. I am not done with my testing but so far PCM has correctly discovered the trunk, added the correct color to the link between the 3400 and 4100 plus correctly represented the blocked port with the dashed lines.
However when you mouse over the trunk link between the 3400 and 4100 the speed is not correctly represented. This is a known issue and the PCM lab is working on a fix for 2.0.
-Hector
I am an HPE Employee
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
тАО07-10-2005 08:48 PM
тАО07-10-2005 08:48 PM
Re: PCM+ vs. Trunks
Hector,
> I've been doing some testing with similar
> equipment on PCM 2.0. I am not done with my
> testing but so far PCM has correctly
> discovered the trunk, added the correct color
> to the link between the 3400 and 4100 plus
> correctly represented the blocked port with
> the dashed lines.
Huh, PCM2.0 isn't yet available I thought? Anyway, good to know it will be fixed by then. I'm also having numerous other problems with 1.60 (also read here from others, especially trafficd going weird after some runtime), so an upgrade is planned.
> However when you mouse over the trunk link > between the 3400 and 4100 the speed is not > correctly represented. This is a known
> issue and the PCM lab is working on a fix
> for 2.0.
This is actually an SNMP issue, MIB2 cannot represent the interface speed with just 32 bits. I'm unsure though how it comes out at 14xx Mbps as it does in 1.60, maybe an additional signedness issue. I ignored this essentially as it indeed is just a display glitch and hearing they are going to work around it is great.
Thanks,
Andre.
> I've been doing some testing with similar
> equipment on PCM 2.0. I am not done with my
> testing but so far PCM has correctly
> discovered the trunk, added the correct color
> to the link between the 3400 and 4100 plus
> correctly represented the blocked port with
> the dashed lines.
Huh, PCM2.0 isn't yet available I thought? Anyway, good to know it will be fixed by then. I'm also having numerous other problems with 1.60 (also read here from others, especially trafficd going weird after some runtime), so an upgrade is planned.
> However when you mouse over the trunk link > between the 3400 and 4100 the speed is not > correctly represented. This is a known
> issue and the PCM lab is working on a fix
> for 2.0.
This is actually an SNMP issue, MIB2 cannot represent the interface speed with just 32 bits. I'm unsure though how it comes out at 14xx Mbps as it does in 1.60, maybe an additional signedness issue. I ignored this essentially as it indeed is just a display glitch and hearing they are going to work around it is great.
Thanks,
Andre.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Hewlett Packard Enterprise. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.
News and Events
Support
© Copyright 2024 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP