Mike, I finally got the switches to give up the config files. Getting these things from firmware 1.2 to 1.4.11 took 4 firmware upgrades and 1 boot upgrade. Below is the url to the switch config files *http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g440c3055c46aeeae1000279093dea129f9edbcfc24 <http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g440c3055c46aeeae1000279093dea129f9edbcfc24>*
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 10:16 AM Chuck Hast <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I have been trying to get a backup file out of this so I can > send it to you, but so far when I try to do http/https backup it > fails the only thing is I get a network error, and if I look in the > switch logs, it says it cannot find the file. > > I have a SG300-28 at home, it was never this cantankerous, > I can do file backups and uploads to it with no issues whatsoever. > > They must have cut some major corners somewhere with these > switches. > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 11:30 AM Chuck Hast <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, I went to pull the backed up config files out of both switches >> and got a "network failure." I setup a tftp server on my >> laptop and tried to go that way and got a "file not found" error. >> >> Appears that I have to upgrade to a later rev of the firmware/boot >> file. Both switches are presently at Rev 1.2.9.44, which has no >> ssh, and appears that it "likes" some old version of i.e. So perhaps >> doing that upgrade will take care of these issues. Who knows. >> Once I do the upgrades I will let you know what happens, if it still >> does not want to pass the vlan 20 to switch 02 I will pull the >> config file and send it. This rev level has NO CLI whatsoever, >> but it is installed in one of the later revs, got to get to that. >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:38 PM Chuck Hast <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Let me get you the config files, let us not break our heads on it >>> until you can look at them. I know on the web screens I set up >>> port 50 to have vlan 20 tagged on both ends. In my megre work >>> in this area, it seems that I always did the same thing, the link >>> carrying the camera VLAN went on a separate path to keep >>> possible latence down due to competition for the link path. >>> >>> This is the same case the cameras are on VLAN 20, it is a >>> total network island because the stinking cameras call home, >>> and the best way to avoid it is just to put them on and island >>> network. This is the first time I can recall having this issue. in >>> the past I just tagged the two ends of the link and my video >>> data went that direction. All the rest went with VLAN 1 on >>> the other link. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 4:15 AM Mike C. <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> > >>>> > That is what I was thinking based on the other Cisco doc I read all I >>>> need >>>> > to do is set both of the two fibre links up as trunks and it should >>>> work, >>>> > but there is another one that also said the part about tagging. I >>>> have VLAN >>>> > 20 (the VLANS are 1, 10 and 20) on port 50 on both ends, I have also >>>> removed >>>> > it but still no joy.\ >>>> >>>> >>>> Just to be clear, with port based vlans, which is what you have, a port >>>> can >>>> only belong to 1 untagged vlan. So when you have a port set to untagged >>>> w. >>>> the pvid set, then that port will only be in the default / native vlan, >>>> which is VLAN 1 on most network equipment vendors. This is often used as >>>> the management vlan. >>>> >>>> However, you can only have 1 untagged vlan per port. Any other vlans you >>>> want that port to handle must be tagged. Otherwise, all those packets >>>> will >>>> be treated as they're part of the default / native vlan. >>>> >>>> Which seems to be what you have configured. VLAN 1 untagged pvid on P49 >>>> and >>>> VLAN 20 untagged pvid on P50 on both switches. >>>> >>>> And that makes me reconsider my earlier statement: >>>> >>>> Switch B >>>> > >>>> > 49 GE49 Enabled Disabled STP Root 20000 128 Forwarding >>>> > 32768-f0:29:29:f5:43:bd 128-97 0 1 >>>> > 50 GE50 Enabled Disabled STP Alternate 20000 128 Discarding >>>> > 32768-f0:29:29:f5:43:bd 128-98 0 0 >>>> > This one says discarding for port 50, so suspect that is the issue. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Normally, the way this is designed and configured when there's multiple >>>> uplinks is to create a LAG or MLT, a trunk group that carries all VLANs. >>>> This provides more bandwidth and failover redundancy. >>>> >>>> But you haven't said anything about a LAG configuration and if you don't >>>> have any traffic traversing P50, if memory serves until you take the >>>> fibre >>>> link down on P49. Is that correct? >>>> >>>> Therefore, if you want this to work you will have to tag vlan 10, 20 on >>>> port 49 and port 50 and you will have only 1 active uplink over which >>>> all >>>> VLANs traverse. >>>> >>>> Then in the event of a failure of the active uplink, Spanning Tree will >>>> reconfigure and use P50. >>>> >>>> Does that make sense at all? This is difficult to troubleshoot and >>>> explain >>>> over email without the configs. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PLUG: https://pdxlinux.org >>>> PLUG mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Chuck Hast -- KP4DJT -- >>> I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. >>> Ph 4:13 KJV >>> Todo lo puedo en Cristo que me fortalece. >>> Fil 4:13 RVR1960 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Chuck Hast -- KP4DJT -- >> I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. >> Ph 4:13 KJV >> Todo lo puedo en Cristo que me fortalece. >> Fil 4:13 RVR1960 >> >> > > -- > > Chuck Hast -- KP4DJT -- > I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. > Ph 4:13 KJV > Todo lo puedo en Cristo que me fortalece. > Fil 4:13 RVR1960 > > -- Chuck Hast -- KP4DJT -- I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Ph 4:13 KJV Todo lo puedo en Cristo que me fortalece. Fil 4:13 RVR1960 _______________________________________________ PLUG: https://pdxlinux.org PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
