Phil, Other than CDP, are you able to ping new-1/2, from core1/core2 to the directly connected Ten1/1 on new/1/2?
I would like to know if all RP-terminated packets are affected coming in on Ten1/1 of new 1/2 (UDLD packets are terminated on the SP-side). There are a bunch of troubleshooting we can do on core1 and new-1 including packet-buffer capture and ELAM, LTL troubleshooting, which all would have been done by TAC, if you only had TAC maintainance, and your problem would have been resolved by now ;-) Anyway, if have access to the box, I can take a quick look at it if you can unicast me the details. Sukumar -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Mayers Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [c-nsp] Invisible CDP neighbours Bah. 2 out of 9 two boxes, we decide to get vendor rather than TAC maintenance, and it all goes wrong... I wonder if it's encoded in the backplane PROM ;o) Whilst I'm waiting for my reseller to embarass themselves; we have the following setup: core1 [Te1/1] --- [Te1/1] core2 [Te1/3] [Te2/3] | | | | [Te1/1] [Te1/1] new-1 [Te1/2] --- [Te1/2] new-2 core1/core2 are old/existing routers; 6500 sup720-3B 12.2SXF10 and SXF6 respectively, 6704 w/ DFC-3B. They can see each other *and* new-1/2 on the correct ports with CDP. new-1/2 are new, 6500 sup720-3B 12.2SXF10, 6704 w/ CFC (i.e. no DFC) and ACE20 (currently unused). They can see no CDP neighbours on their 10gig ports. The 10gig ports are configured more or less identically on all 4 routers, and a "debug cdp blah" on core1/core2 shows they think they are emitting the CDP packets, but similar debug on new-1/2 never shows a receive. Weirdly, all 4 are connected to an out-of-band 10/100 network via the sup gi5/2 port, and can see each other just fine. I'm having a hard time believing 6704 needs a DFC to do CDP correctly; the only other differences are minor hardware revisions (the new routers are sup 5.4 as opposed to 4.4). Double oddness; "sh udld" has valid data in the "CDP device name" space, which is just annoying! Any thoughts? _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
