v1.3.3 FINAL bug reports and comments

[menacers]

Can I call you to explain the problem?

Here is the setup:

router1
----> vlan1 ----> mac1 -----> netonix port1
----> vlan2 ----> mac1 -----> netonix port1

router2
----> vlan1 ----> mac2 ----> netonix port2
----> vlan2 ----> mac2 -----> netonix port2

NOTE: MAC1 and MAC2 both share the same IP address on vlan2. MAC1 is on the maangement vlan(1), not sure if its relevant.

we exempt vlan2 from port 1, and we tag vlan2 on port 2. The behavior is that all the items on vlan2 on other ports of the netonix, have their packets sent to port 1 (which is mac1) when they should be destined to mac2. The only solution (which we tried after days of this unwanted behaviour) was to actually disable vlan2 on router1 and we could not rely on the netonix to exempt vlan2 from port1.

From your 1st post you are referring to settings on the MAC Table Tab as though they would have an affect on the function of the switch which is not possible.
No settings on the MAC Table Tab have any affect on the behavior of the switch.
The MAC Table Tab is just there to display information as to know MAC addresses on


Please post up a screen grab of the VLAN Tab, that would be the relative information I need to see.

Here is the VLAN page on the switch. so what we did was exempt vlan115 from port2 and tagged it on port12. what we saw was that a mac which previously existed on port2 still showed on mac table. Fine no big deal, except that we have a new mac which uses the same IP address as the mac which shows on the exempted port. So our communication was broken until we went and unplugged the router from port2 on netonix. once we did that, the mac address cleared from the mac table and all communications was restored to the alternate mac on the same ip.

I thought that after 15 minutes the switch would learn that there are not mac addresses on port2 in vlan115, but that was not the case. It didn't learn that there was no macs on port2 vlan115 until we went onto the device plugged into port2 vlan115 and disabled it there.

Now its probably worth nothing that this device has a mac on port2 in the management vlan which works.
Also worth noting that ignore the ascii drawing about the router ports and vlans above, it does not relate to this vlan tab config.

[sirhc]

OK, how is the VLAN tab screen grab going to help us since you crossed everything out?

The VLAN Description is just for reference and has no security risk to give out as it is JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES

To some very limited risk I suppose the VLAN ID "might" be used against you but I highly doubt it.

I put up my VLAN information and so has countless others. If you want to see my VLAN IDs they are in the 1 hour movie on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JvBEAD4MFM

And here in this post viewtopic.php?f=30&t=452

And here in this post viewtopic.php?f=17&t=237

Also use Paint or something and trim it down, like this:
CLICK IMAGE BELOW TO VIEW FULL SIZE

trimmed.jpg (133.06 KiB) Viewed 6560 times

[sirhc]

I will be honest, I am not really sure I follow your original question as to why you thought excluding things on the MAC table Tab would have any affect on the way the switch works?

Also your VLAN Tab if you even put it up so we can read it will probably take me an hour to wrap my head around what your trying to do?

You have Tagged VLANs duplicated across multiple ports which make no sense to me at all?

[menacers]

Here is the vlan tab no alterations.

Exempt vlan115 from port2 and tagged it on port12. we have the vlan tagged on multiple ports simply because we want the vlan to span multiple ports (this should work fine according to 802.1q standards, and works fine for us everywhere else).

What we are trying to do is migrate a NAT subnet from one router to another, the subnet is encapsulated in that vlan 115. so the default gateway which is on router1, would now because a default gateway on router2 by simply having the vlan reach router2 instead of router1. the ip address of the default gateway would be the same on both routers, so in order for it to work, router1 needs be disocnnected at same time as router2, or else you ahve IP conflict. So we experienced ip conflict.

[sirhc]

Exempt vlan115 from port2 and tagged it on port12. we have the vlan tagged on multiple ports simply because we want the vlan to span multiple ports (this should work fine according to 802.1q standards, and works fine for us everywhere else).

Yes you can do that.

What we are trying to do is migrate a NAT subnet from one router to another, the subnet is encapsulated in that vlan 115. so the default gateway which is on router1, would now because a default gateway on router2 by simply having the vlan reach router2 instead of router1. the ip address of the default gateway would be the same on both routers, so in order for it to work, router1 needs be disocnnected at same time as router2, or else you ahve IP conflict. So we experienced ip conflict.

I need to think about this, I will try and take some time this evening and wrap my mind around what you're trying to do.

[jvince]

Here is my output:

admin@Netonix_Switch:/www# cat /tmp/mac_ip.txt
cat: can't open '/tmp/mac_ip.txt': No such file or directory
admin@Netonix_Switch:/www# cat/tmp/mactable.json
cat: can't open '/tmp/mactable.json': No such file or directory
admin@Netonix_Switch:/www#

Ok, I found the problem. This will be fixed in 1.3.5.

Basically it is unable to show the mac table until it has learned at least 1 IP address. If you wait for a while and keep refreshing it will eventually work. This slipped in during the mac table optimizations made in 1.3.3.

Thanks Eric. This isn't a huge problem for me, so we will keep deploying.


Any idea when 1.3.5 will be released?

[sbyrd]

Not sure if this was mentioned yet or not, but on 1.3.3 I have an issue with changing the POE settings when selecting multiple ports at once.

If I select multiple ports and then at the top line click on the PoE drop down box I can see all the power setting options

Off
24V
24VH
48V
48VH

But I cannot select 24V. The GUI will not let me. All the other PoE options work fine. This is on a WS-12-250-AC.

[sbyrd]

Not sure if this was mentioned yet or not, but on 1.3.3 I have an issue with changing the POE settings when selecting multiple ports at once.

If I select multiple ports and then at the top line click on the PoE drop down box I can see all the power setting options

Off
24V
24VH
48V
48VH

But I cannot select 24V. The GUI will not let me. All the other PoE options work fine. This is on a WS-12-250-AC.

Update: If I select all ports or ports 1-4 I can select 24V. If I just select only ports from 5-12, I cannot select 24V. Basically any port combination that includes at least 1 port from ports 1-4 will work, but it will not work on just ports 5-12 only.

[menacers]

Exempt vlan115 from port2 and tagged it on port12. we have the vlan tagged on multiple ports simply because we want the vlan to span multiple ports (this should work fine according to 802.1q standards, and works fine for us everywhere else).

Yes you can do that.

What we are trying to do is migrate a NAT subnet from one router to another, the subnet is encapsulated in that vlan 115. so the default gateway which is on router1, would now because a default gateway on router2 by simply having the vlan reach router2 instead of router1. the ip address of the default gateway would be the same on both routers, so in order for it to work, router1 needs be disocnnected at same time as router2, or else you ahve IP conflict. So we experienced ip conflict.

I need to think about this, I will try and take some time this evening and wrap my mind around what you're trying to do.

Hey Sirc, curious if you were able to replicate the issue?

[nasked]

1.- DHCP

I fixed IP, Mask and Gateway in my Netonix. I select DHCP mode. Netonix works fine... but if Netonix lost DHCP server contact i can't management it. I expected to find Netonix working in his fallback ip. The only way to access Netonix was by console port. Then i changed state mode to "Static" and Netonix was operative by the ip previusly designed.

In static ip mode Netonix works fine... then i change it to DHCP and i started my DHCP server again... Netonix worked fine again.

Conclusion...If Netonix is in DHCP mode and lost DHCP server contact... Netonix is "lost in Space"

2.- LAG

I just received my second Netonix unit. I test LAG aggregation. Wired works fine. But as it is logical all Wisp dreams to connect two towers with LAG. I have 4 AirFiber connected with LAG. I used two cisco units. I can't test the same backhaul with Netonix because this link is on work. Also i'm interesting to make it with PBM10. Then i tested LAG with Nanobridges... results fail. With LAG-A i lost Nanobridge Managements. Static mode i have management but traffic only works by one link.

If someone managed to do this..pse send configuration pictures... I know there are many problems with WDS AirOs software and LAG.

Greetings...