Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org] > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:33 PM > To: Adam Vitkovsky > Cc: james list; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ? > > Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > > There's actually also LFM and the whole CFM suit for

Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > There's actually also LFM and the whole CFM suit for L2 OAM. > So if supported you can use LFM on bundle members. the OP was using an older 6500 on one side, which mostly didn't support oam, from what I remember. Nick ___

Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

> Nick Hilliard > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:26 PM > To: james list > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ? > > james list wrote: > > Since i have also lacp fast configured, should it detect any possible > > issue before udld? > &

Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

We have two cisco 3850 switch connected over 10g with udld enabled and recently we upgrade one of switch and as soon as switch reload it put 10g link in err-disable mode, if I disable udld it works. Any idea what would be wrong? -- Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 6, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Nick

Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

james list wrote: > Since i have also lacp fast configured, should it detect any possible > issue before udld? yes, by definition it will, because udld will not interoperate between ios and junos. If you want to detect unidirectional link failures between ios and junos where you're using l2 only

Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

yes, in general I see your points, I was wondering if there could be a reasonable reason for the mentioned behaviour 2016-05-31 16:33 GMT+02:00 Nick Hilliard : > james list wrote: > > Apparently the Cisco gear has disabled one out of the two ten giga > > interface after some

Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

james list wrote: > Apparently the Cisco gear has disabled one out of the two ten giga > interface after some flapping of the other one and due to UDLD that is > currently non configured as aggressive nor bidirectional (not supported by > Juniper gear). > > Among the two gears LACP fast is

[c-nsp] udld fail ?

dear experts I've a Cisco 6500 (12.2(33)) connected to a juniper EX4200 with a 2 x 10Gb port channel. Apparently the Cisco gear has disabled one out of the two ten giga interface after some flapping of the other one and due to UDLD that is currently non configured as aggressive nor bidirectional