Can you give us some more lines in your packetfence.log?  One line won't
help.  Maybe you should turn on debug logging as well.

Otherwise, it will be hard to help.

 I am testing a Cisco 2960 with port-security and PF 2.1, and something
> is happening that I think is not correct, so I will describe it below:
>
>
>
> 1)      Cisco 2960 switch, running C2960-LANBASEK9-M 12.2(44)SE6
>
> a.       Configured with port-security per port
>
>                                                                i.
> Global port-security settings:
>
> 1.       snmp-server enable traps port-security
>
> 2.       snmp-server enable traps port-security trap-rate 1
>
> 3.       mac address-table aging-time 3600
>
>                                                              ii.
> Interface level port-security settings:
>
> 1.       switchport access vlan 321
>
> 2.        switchport mode access
>
> 3.        switchport port-security maximum 1 vlan access
>
> 4.        switchport port-security violation restrict
>
> 5.        switchport port-security mac-address 0200.0001.0003
>
> 6.        spanning-tree portfast
>
> b.      Vlan 321 is the isolation and mac-detection vlan.
>
>
>
> 2)      When I connected an unregistered device to the port, the
> packetfence log shows a port-security trap from the switch, and
> packetfence added the MAC address to the database as an unregistered
> device.
>
> 3)      I edited the entry for the MAC address via the packetfence webUI
> and set the entry to registered.
>
> 4)      This entry then shows up in the packetfence log:
>
> a.       pfcmd(0) WARN: Can't change VLAN for mac 34:15:9e:10:72:06
> because no open locationlog entry was found (main::vlan_reevaluation)
>
> 5)      I disconnected the device, and reconnected it to the same port.
>
> 6)      The packetfence log shows no port-security trap when the port
> link comes up, but does show the dhcp requests that the device is making
>
> 7)      The switchport the device is connected to is not changed to the
> VLAN specified in packetfence
>
> 8)      a "show run" on the switch shows the the interface level
> settings have not changed at all
>
> 9)      a "show port-security interface" on the switch for the port
> shows:
>
> a.       Port Security              : Disabled
>
> b.      Port Status                : Secure-down
>
> c.       Violation Mode             : Restrict
>
> d.      Aging Time                 : 0 mins
>
> e.      Aging Type                 : Absolute
>
> f.        SecureStatic Address Aging : Disabled
>
> g.       Maximum MAC Addresses      : 1
>
> h.      Total MAC Addresses        : 1
>
> i.         Configured MAC Addresses   : 1
>
> j.        Sticky MAC Addresses       : 0
>
> k.       Last Source Address:Vlan   : 0000.0000.0000:0
>
> l.         Security Violation Count   : 0
>
>
>
> So I have several questions:
>
>
>
> 1)      After connecting the device the first time, packetfence did as
> it should: learn the MAC address, set it to unreg, leave the port in the
> unreg vlan. By why did it not go to the switch and set the vlan to the
> registered devices vlan after I registered the device?
>
> 2)      Why are subsequent clean connections by the same device to the
> same port on the switch not generating any traps at all?
>
>
>
> I had expect to see a flow of operation such that when the device
> connected, it would remain isolated, PF would learn the MAC, an admin
> user in PF would set the device to registered, PF would then reconfigure
> the switch port to reflect the registered state.
>
>
>
> What am I doing and/or understanding incorrectly? I am not using captive
> portal, just PF admin manual reg state changes in the PF WebUI.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
> Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
> priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve
> application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about
> boosting
> the value of server virtualization.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev_______________________________________________
> Packetfence-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload 
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve 
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting 
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Packetfence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users

Reply via email to