Send netdisco-users mailing list submissions to
        [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netdisco-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of netdisco-users digest..."
Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Prevent display of up='notPresent' ports in CiscoSB
      device port listings (Nic Bernstein)
   2. Re: Prevent display of up='notPresent' ports in CiscoSB
      device port listings (Nic Bernstein)
--- Begin Message ---
In re: not discovering, I'm in favor.

As for the "notPresent" interfaces appearing in the config, I don't see that with the hundreds of interfaces I'm describing.  Nor do I see that with my Port-channel interfaces.  For example, the switch stack at issue here, is constructed as follows (thanks Rancid):

   !Unit          Type
   !---- ----------------------
   ! 1        SG500X-48MP
   ! 3         SG500-52MP
   ! 4         SG500-52MP
   ! 5         SG500-52MP
   !
   !       Unit             SW version         Boot version         HW version
   !------------------- ------------------- ------------------- 
-------------------
   !         1                1.4.7.5            1.4.0.02               V01
   !         3                1.4.7.5            1.4.0.02               V01
   !         4                1.4.7.5            1.4.0.02               V01
   !         5                1.4.7.5            1.4.0.02               V01

A bit further down in that Rancid config file is the one and only Port-channel definition:

   !
   interface gigabitethernet5/1/50
     bridge multicast unregistered filtering
   !
   interface Port-channel1
     description LAGToIDF2Prod
   !
   exit

For that matter, looking at all of the Rancid config files for this entire LAN, with several stacks and dozens of chassis, shows only the following "interface Port-channel" lines in all of them:

   root@presager-lg:~rancid/default/configs # grep Port-channel *
   10.61.1.23:interface Port-channel1
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel1
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel8
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel9
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel10
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel11
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel12
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel13
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel14
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel21
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel22
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel30
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel31
   10.61.1.24:interface Port-channel32
   10.61.1.8:interface Port-channel21
   10.61.2.2:interface Port-channel10

So as far as I know, however, once a Port-channel has been defined, it can only be removed through special incantations on the sabbath night. :-)  No, seriously, they can be removed, but not via the normal "no interface po1".  I just cannot remember the trick right now.  I suspect, given your other comments, that your WUI or SmartPort (inaptly named) caused them to be created, leaving a nasty legacy behind.

BTW: I do agree with your pro/con on the SB switches, but must say, with the latest SG350X and SG550X series stuff, there's some really tempting 10G offerings.

Cheers,
    -nic

On 12/6/18 3:57 PM, Nick Nauwelaerts wrote:

about filtering in device overview:

correct, ofcourse only tested with "not present" selected. it seems the diff made "not present" just another port_state which will be or'ed together in:

$set = $set->search({-or => \@combi});

after reviewing & testing some options, it seems there are a few options.

* making it the same like "admin disabled" (where deselecting no longer shows it). difference is that ports cant be up + admin disabled. these ports can be up + notpresent & down + notpresent

* making "not present" a box to tick, so that $set = $set->search({-or => \@combi}); gets modified to with something like "and up != "notPresent"

about not discovering:

i'm kinda mixed about this from a correctness point of view (even is ciscosb's operating almost does nothing correct). this being that, at least for port channel interfaces, they actually show up in the running config:

interface Port-channel1

shutdown

no snmp trap link-status

and i can find no way to delete them (most likely because the web ui for these devices has port channels hardcoded). if up & not connected (admin up, port down) or when in admin shutdown (admin down, port down) they show "notPresent" in both cases. we dont actually have any that are up/up, so no clue what other options there are. but since they are in the config, imo it makes sense to also have them in the ports table.

both have pros & cons, which one is preferred & i'll see if i can whip up a working patch.

--
Nic Bernstein                             [email protected]
Onlight, Inc.                             www.onlight.com
6525 W Bluemound Road, Suite 24           v. 414.272.4477
Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53213-4073

<<attachment: nic.vcf>>


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 12/6/18 3:57 PM, Nick Nauwelaerts wrote:

after reviewing & testing some options, it seems there are a few options.


Have you got any patches you can share?  I've just cloned the repo, and can prepare for some testing with one of my stupid stacks.
    -nic

* making it the same like "admin disabled" (where deselecting no longer shows it). difference is that ports cant be up + admin disabled. these ports can be up + notpresent & down + notpresent

* making "not present" a box to tick, so that $set = $set->search({-or => \@combi}); gets modified to with something like "and up != "notPresent"


--
Nic Bernstein                             [email protected]
Onlight, Inc.                             www.onlight.com
6525 W Bluemound Road, Suite 24           v. 414.272.4477
Milwaukee, Wisconsin  53213-4073

<<attachment: nic.vcf>>


--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Netdisco mailing list - Digest Mode
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netdisco-users

Reply via email to