intervlan routing between 5400 zl and HP E2510-24G

[Reda]

Hi .

i am trying to trouble shoot an issue between 5400 zl core and 2510 access switch 

the communication between both switches are through the default vlan  and  both can be shown on LLDP remote device 

 but still can't ping the management 192.168.2 subnet or any other one from both ends

 i attached a copy of the core and edge configuration for your referance. 

Thank you 

P.S. This thread has been moved from Comware to ProCurve. - Hp Forum Moderator

[paulgear]

Hi Reda,

(Disclaimer: i haven't used VRRP on ProCurve - only on other platforms)

A couple of questions:

1. Is your VRRP actually working?  Have you tested it by turning off or disconnecting core1?  What is the output of 'show vrrp' and 'show vrrp config'?
2. Is your MSTP setup actually working the way you think it is?  What is the output of 'show spanning-tree mst-config'?

I would have thought that core1 would need an IP address which doesn't clash with the VRRP IP in order for the VRRP configuration to work.

My inexperience with VRRP on ProCurve might mean this is completely off-base, but that's where i'd be looking first.

[Vince_Whirlwind · Accepted solution]

His VRRP config is exactly as per the config guide, odd as that might look.

VRRP on the 5400s will work either way.

The config looks fine:

You have a trunk, Trk1, comprised of ports A23 & A24 on both Cores.

You have VLAN1 untagged on that trunk, on both cores.

Therefore VRRP should be working - do as Paul says and check it using the show commands he suggests.

Then you have Core1, B1 patched to Edge4, 23, and both ports on either side are untagged in VLAN 1.

Edge4 has a valid IP address in VLAN1.

If Edge4 can't ping its default GW, why not try disabling edge4, port24? See if that makes a difference.

Also, you need to reduce Core1 global STP priority to1 and Core2 priority to 2. I suspect if you do some "show spanning-tree" you'll discover your spanning-tree topology has converged on a bit of an odd state.

Why are you using MSTP? I'm not a big fan of it - it complicates your config and I'm not sure what value it provides.

[paulgear]

Yeah - i since found my reference doco on VRRP on 5400s and it looks right.  It seems quite strange to me that the master doesn't have another address that it can be contacted on when the VRRP has failed over.  But anyway, it looks like that's not the issue.

I don't think the choice of MSTP is likely to be an issue here so much as misconfiguration of it - not having switch priorities defined is a big deal.  The one key benefit MSTP brings is more fully using redundant links, which can be an issue on high-volume networks.  (Although, one could argue that anyone who cares that much about throughput wouldn't be using a 2510...)

Anyway, Reda, as Vince says, your port tags look OK, so it's likely that the problem is elsewhere, most likely due to unexpected ports blocking.  If you can give us the previously-requested diagnostic outputs, and exact results of which switches can ping which other switches, with specific IP addresses tested, we can probably work out what's going on.

[Vince_Whirlwind]

If you care about throughput, you patch in extra links, as required. Using MSTP seems to be a way of surrendering your redundancy - if your failure scenario results in congestion, then you no longer have the redundancy you need, and you need extra links. (Pet gripe of mine).

[Reda]

Thank you paulgear and Vince_Whirlwind, your comments are really usefull 

seems that i have an issues in the redudancy, were i was unable to ping the .2.254  during the reboot of core1  as paulger

please find below the output of spanning tree and vrrp troubleshooting 

i was checking the following link 

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&taskId=115&objectID=c03093973&prodSeriesId=1827663&prodTypeId=12883

and seems that i have to add static route on the core2? what do you suggest 

Vince_Whirlwind, may you please let me know how can change the priorty of mstp ? 

spanning-tree priority 1 ? 

thank you in advance 

[paulgear]

As suspected, your spanning tree root is bouncing due to switch priorities not being set.  You need to set your spanning tree priorities (i usually choose 0 for the primary, 1 for the secondary, and leave the others at defaults).

[Pete W]

In my experience, Y.11.12 was terribly buggy - definitely upgrade to something higher.

BTW, I've recently experienced some oddity around GVRP/dot1X/tagging on a 2510G running Y.11.41 which was not seen on Y.11.35.

Pete

[Pete W]

Just noticed that your MSTP instances don't match.

When I build networks that use MSTP, I issue the command "sh spanning-tree mst-config".  All of the switches within the same MST region should have exactly the same "MST Configuration Digest". For example:

========================================================

SW-2510-HUB1-036# sh spanning-tree mst-config

MST Configuration Identifier Information

MST Configuration Name : TEST-MST-Region
MST Configuration Revision : 1
MST Configuration Digest : 0xAD5A9284BD73C3C293282D576F76FDFF

IST Mapped VLANs : 256-4094

Instance ID Mapped VLANs
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------
1 1-53,55-87,89-255
2 54,88
SW-2510-HUB1-036#

----------------------------------

SW-5406-CORE-001# sh spanning-tree mst-config

MST Configuration Identifier Information

MST Configuration Name : TEST-MST-Region 
MST Configuration Revision : 1
MST Configuration Digest : 0xAD5A9284BD73C3C293282D576F76FDFF

IST Mapped VLANs : 256-4094

Instance ID Mapped VLANs
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------
1 1-53,55-87,89-255
2 54,88

SW-5406-CORE-001#

========================================================

Copy and paste is your friend,

Regards,

Peter.

[Reda]

HI,

Thanks much,  i updated the firmeware 35 release, you are correct the mst digest ? 

 i would apprieate if you figure a  good how to configuration guid that i can follow on this type of configuration, as i am planning to route my other sites throug cisco 1911 and 2911 routers

Thanks once again

[Reda]

the disest's are matced now by adding the missing the vlans into the spanning tree instances

thanks all