<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: collision issue  in Application Networking</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248969#M25890</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Gilles, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am not so sure on what you mean of the active-active issues. Is it done over the ft group x vlan y?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But i did configure both CSM , only variant in between is the value of priority. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Both of my box showing "active"...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anyway i can manually config this pair in active-standby ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Noel&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:49:17 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ubdnet_kkipc</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-06-29T10:49:17Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>collision issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248967#M25888</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi guys, would like to check out what's really the logging telling and what's the problem it will be. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have 2 unit of 6500 boxes with CSM. The topology is doing in single subnet mode. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The server NIC is doing in SLB, where 1 primary 1 standby, and the NIC physically doing in Switched tolerance fault way. The 2 switches are interconnect and trunking allow vlan 11, 12 to carry thru.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I facing intermittent performance issue once trying to access the services. So this is what i get from sh logging :&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;%CSM_SLB-4-TOPOLOGY: Module 1 warning: IP address conflict: ARP frame from 202.160.xx.xx with MAC 00:01:64:f9:1a:01 received on VLAN 11&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;%CSM_SLB-4-TOPOLOGY: Module 1 warning: IP address conflict: ARP frame from 10.0.xx.xx with MAC 00:01:64:f9:1a:01 received on VLAN 12&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any idea what i should deal with it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Noel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:16:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248967#M25888</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco_jiang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-29T05:16:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: collision issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248968#M25889</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Noel,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as I said, MAC 00:01:64:f9:1a:01 is the CSM mac-address of the active.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, you could have active-active issues or a loop somewhere.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You will need to capture sniffer traces on both Cat6k vlan 11 and vlan 12 and see what is happening with the arp packets.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gilles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:31:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248968#M25889</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-29T06:31:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: collision issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248969#M25890</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Gilles, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am not so sure on what you mean of the active-active issues. Is it done over the ft group x vlan y?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But i did configure both CSM , only variant in between is the value of priority. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Both of my box showing "active"...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anyway i can manually config this pair in active-standby ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Noel&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:49:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248969#M25890</guid>
      <dc:creator>ubdnet_kkipc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-29T10:49:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: collision issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248970#M25891</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Noel,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;only 1 device can be active !!!!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The csm does not support active-active.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you do a 'show mod csmx ft' you should see one device saying active and the other one standby.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You need to do some troubleshooting to figure out which device send the arp response.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This needs to be done with sniffer trace on both CSM simulatneously.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(no other solution since the mac is shared).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;See if there is any loop.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is typical layer 2 issues and they do not get solve with simple config commands.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You need to figure out which device send the arp response and if this is normal behaivior or not.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Once we know which device sends the arp respones we can decide which device to fix.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;G.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:05:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248970#M25891</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gilles Dufour</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-06-29T14:05:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: collision issue</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248971#M25892</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Gilles, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;after a full inspection on the L2 config, found out there's no trunking allowed vlan on the FT and the VLAN server pass thru between the interconnecting switch...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;now 2 boxes in active-standby mode, and everything running smooth.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyhow, i want to thanks for the support along these days, the words are inspired me to go further and inspect..&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Noel&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:31:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/application-networking/collision-issue/m-p/1248971#M25892</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco_jiang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-07-04T02:31:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

