v1.4.8rcX Bug reports and comments

[Eric Stern]

The management VLAN should not be in the monitored VLANs. It could potentially be used for the Control VLAN, but my understanding is that most configurations used a separate dedicated VLAN for control.

[mike99]

CCM won't connect if we add MEP without specifing the port.

Code: Select all

20# show erps
MEP 1
ID: 20
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 0
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: 00-00-00-00-00-00
CCM Status: Down
20#
21# show erps
MEP 1
ID: 21
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 0
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: 00-00-00-00-00-00
CCM Status: Down
21#
22# show erps
MEP 1
ID: 22
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 0
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: 00-00-00-00-00-00
CCM Status: Down

Just by adding the ports, CCM session goes up:
20# show erps
MEP 1
ID: 2001
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 13
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: ec-13-b2-61-43-36
CCM Status: Up
MEP 2
ID: 2002
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 14
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: ec-13-b2-61-b4-5c
CCM Status: Up
20#
20#
21# show erps
MEP 1
ID: 21
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 13
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: ec-13-b2-61-13-f6
CCM Status: Up

Code: Select all

21#
22# show erps
MEP 1
ID: 22
MD: distribution
MA: ISP1
Level: 5
CCM Interval: 10 ms
Port: 14
VLAN: 4080
Peer ID: ec-13-b2-61-13-f6
CCM Status: Up

[mike99]

The management VLAN should not be in the monitored VLANs. It could potentially be used for the Control VLAN, but my understanding is that most configurations used a separate dedicated VLAN for control.

On my config, management VLAN is 5 and control VLAN 4080. Those are separeted but control VLAN is not related to my problem.

All switch share a management VLAN to access those switch. How can I avoiding loop on management VLAN if I can't add the management VLAN to the ring ? Even with a management VLAN by switch (what would make no sense), I still have the same problem.

[mike99]

Here's a drawing so it will be easier to understand. As soon as VLAN 5 is part of the monitored VLAN list, I lost access via port 11 but switch can still be ping from one to a other so it's seem to affect every port outside of the ring.

[Eric Stern]

You should not be able to add a MEP without specifying a port. I'll fix that.

Its my understanding that ERPS is used on customer VLANs, you would use STP on the management VLAN/port.

[mike99]

Can't find anything about it anywhere. Is It this from vitesse documentation ?

The only information about running both in the same port I can find is the following from Juniper:
Note: Spanning-tree protocols and ERPS cannot both be configured on a ring port. Because RSTP is the spanning-tree protocol enabled in the default switch configuration, this example shows disabling RSTP on each ring port before configuring ERPS. If another spanning-tree protocol is enabled, you must disable that first instead.
Source: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/e ... eries.html

Anyway, STP/RSTP is not a option since those could block the ring by disabling the whole port. Is MSTP priority fix ? I tested a little and is seemed like not.

[mike99]

Ingnitenet Fusionswtich have a great documentation for ERPS.
https://ignitenet.uservoice.com/knowled ... er-manuals

At page 476, you can see limitation of ERPS. One of those limitation is:
Exclusive use of STP or ERPS on any port.

A other one is that control VLAN should not be management VLAN and should not have IP address. The CVLAN should also contain only ring port (so exclude of trunk). Ring can't be member of a trunk or LACP enabled port.

A other limitation is max 255 data VLAN but with QinQ support , that should not be a problem.

[tonym]

I've been working with LLDP-MIB and CISCO-CDP-MIB and these two are not properly implemented.

The indexes are incorrect. All entries should have this index structure, please see LLDP-MIB

Code: Select all

# LLDP-MIB::lldpRemPortId.234523.20.1
# .1.0.8802.1.1.2.1.4.1.1.7[.234523.20.11]
[.lldpRemTimeMark.lldpRemLocalPortNum.lldpRemIndex]


From the MIB:
lldpRemEntry OBJECT-TYPE
INDEX { lldpRemTimeMark, lldpRemLocalPortNum, lldpRemIndex }

http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/M ... 60000Z.txt

CISCO-CDP-MIB has the same issue, but i different indexes:
cdpCacheEntry OBJECT-TYPE
INDEX { cdpCacheIfIndex, cdpCacheDeviceIndex }

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/libre ... CO-CDP-MIB

[sirhc]

- Fixed SNMP support for Q-SWITCH-MIB, LLDP and CDP - RC7

NOTE: MSTP is still being tested so use MSTP at your own risk.

FIXED/CHANGED
- Fixed SNMP support for Q-SWITCH-MIB, LLDP and CDP - RC7
- Changed temp sensor readings on DC models to effect fan speeds - RC2
- Grey out unavailable bulk poe options - RC3
- Upper out of voltage range for IDC is now 54V - RC4

ENHANCEMENTS
- Added ERPS protocol implementation is g.8032v2 - Ring Protection - RC1
- Added BETA note to ERPS - RC3
- Added port name to "show interface status" CLI command - RC3
- ADD an input voltage calibration for DC models - RC4
- Improved Q-BRIDGE-MIB support - RC5
- improved fan control on DC models - RC6
- improved stability of ERPS- RC6

KNOWN ISSUES
- Some language templates need help - please private message Eric Stern to help

v1.4.8rc1 Released 5/9/2017
v1.4.8rc2 Released 5/11/2017
v1.4.8rc3 Released 5/15/2017
v1.4.8rc4 Released 5/23/2017
v1.4.8rc5 Released 5/26/2017
v1.4.8rc6 Released 6/7/2017
v1.4.8rc7 Released 6/17/2017

[tonym]

Sorry I didn't catch this in the first pass. I found lldpRemManAddrTable is incorrect.

lldpRemManAddrSubtype and lldpRemManAddr should be inaccessible. (only used in the index)
lldpRemManAddrIfSubtype, lldpRemManAddrIfId, and lldpRemManAddrOID should be available (read-only) (If there is no data for these entries, they should return default data)

There seems to be a .4 missing from the index (I'm not an expert at reading mibs, so I'm not sure what this is) but all vendor implementations I tested are consistent.

Code: Select all

lldpRemManAddrIfSubtype
1.0.8802.1.1.2.1.4.2.1.3.0.24.1.1.4.10.36.68.10 = 1


The rest of lldp is looking good. I'll be reviewing cdp soon.