07-14-2009 12:17 PM
I am trying to do something similar to:
Where I want to have an interface's subcommand as a prequisite to apply other commands to the interface. Basically:
if interface -switchport mode trunk, then apply X
In the thread above, jclarke said RME had a limitation where it could not do this. Has it been resolved? If it has, I need some help with my template.
Solved! Go to Solution.
07-14-2009 03:11 PM
You are using a negative prerequisite, so you are seeing bug CSCsv25190. This bug is fixed in LMS 3.2.
07-14-2009 12:44 PM
Yes, this is doable in RME 4.1 and higher.
07-14-2009 01:34 PM
Can you tell me what is wrong with this logic? I know my interface Regex is good, as this works fine without the prerequisite check. This should return any port 1/0/1 - 1/0/24 that does NOT have switchport mode trunk, has the + commmands below. When I do a check, it just returns that I do not have any of the prerequisites...should return "compliant"
PreReq:
Parent: None
Prereq: None
Prereq?: Checked
Submode: interface [#.*/0/([1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-4])#]
CLI:
- switchport mode trunk
Check:
Parent: PreReq
Prereq: PreReq
Prereq?: Not Checked
Submode: Blank
CLI:
+ switchport mode access
+ switchport nonegotiate
+ spanning-tree portfast
+ storm-control broadcast level 1.00
+ storm-control multicast level 1.00
07-14-2009 03:11 PM
You are using a negative prerequisite, so you are seeing bug CSCsv25190. This bug is fixed in LMS 3.2.
02-10-2010 01:37 PM
Running LMS 3.2 now with RME 4.3.1, still hitting this bug(at least a variation of it)
My (current) specific complaint is as follows:
Prerequisite:
Submode:
interface [#.*#]
Checks:
+switchport mode trunk
-[#channel-group.*#]
In theory, this is to match all trunk ports that are not a member of a port channel. In testing, this matches ALL trunks(basically ignoring the negative statement).
In further testing, if i remove the positive statement ("+switchport mode trunk") and leave ONLY the negative check ("-channel-group") it DOES match all ports not a member of a portchannel.
So it seems this bug has been partially fixed, in that negative prereq checks DO work, just not in combination with a postivie check.
Is there a current bug logged? Or better yet, is there a workaround for this?
02-10-2010 06:04 PM
This is CSCta80687. The problem stems from the fact that your negative prereq uses regular expressions (this bug only happens in certain circumstances). There is currently no fix or workaround. It will be fixed in LMS 4.0 due out this summer.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide