SG300-20 Update to 1.2.7.76 lost OID

[natewlew1]

I use this oid to gather mac address: .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.4.3.1.1

This has worked on all of our cisco switches (3560,SG300, etc...). When an SG300-20 was updated to 1.2.7.76 the oid no longer exist.

snmpwalk -c public -v 2c switch .1.3.6.1.2.1.17.4.3.1.1

iso.3.6.1.2.1.17.4.3.1.1 = No Such Instance currently exists at this OID

Does anyone know what caused this? Should I downgrade the switch back to 1.1.2.0?

Thanks.

[Tom Watts]

Hi Nathan, what is the exact object name? The bridge-mib is pretty large. If you could please let me know, I'll check in to this a bit deeper.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[natewlew1]

I am not sure what you mean?

Here is an excerpt from: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk362/technologies_tech_note09186a00801c9199.shtml

.1.3.6.1.2.1.17.4.3.1.1 
dot1dTpFdbAddress OBJECT-TYPE
         -- FROM BRIDGE-MIB
         -- TEXTUAL CONVENTION MacAddress
         SYNTAX          OCTET STRING (6)
         MAX-ACCESS      read-only
         STATUS          Mandatory
         DESCRIPTION    "A unicast MAC address for which the bridge has forwarding 
                 and/or filtering information." 
::= { iso(1) org(3) dod(6) internet(1) mgmt(2) mib-2(1) dot1dBridge(17) dot1dTp(4) 
dot1dTpFdbTable(3) dot1dTpFdbEntry(1) 1 } 

[Tom Watts]

Here are all the dot1d object names on the SX300 1.2.7.76

      dot1dBaseBridgeAddress

      dot1dBaseNumPorts

      dot1dBasePortTable

      dot1dBaseType

      dot1dDeviceCapabilities

      dot1dPortGarpTable

      dot1dPortPriorityTable

      dot1dStaticTable

      dot1dStpBridgeForwardDelay

      dot1dStpBridgeHelloTime

      dot1dStpBridgeMaxAge

      dot1dStpDesignatedRoot

      dot1dStpForwardDelay

      dot1dStpHelloTime

      dot1dStpHoldTime

      dot1dStpMaxAge

      dot1dStpPathCostDefault

      dot1dStpPortTable

      dot1dStpPriority

      dot1dStpProtocolSpecification

      dot1dStpRootCost

      dot1dStpRootPort

      dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange

      dot1dStpTopChanges

      dot1dStpVersion

      dot1dTpAgingTime

      dot1dTpFdbTable

      dot1dTpPortTable

      dot1dTrafficClassTable

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[natewlew1]

Does that mean the dot1dTpFdbAddress is not there? Should I go back to 1.1.2.0?

[Tom Watts]

Yes, if it was there or working previously and you require it, you can downgrade to the 1.1.2.0.

If you have a backup file from the 1.1.2.0, I'd recommend to reset the switch after the downgrade. The reason being the 1.2.7.76 changed the XML the switch uses and you will have some lingering effects of the 1.2.7.76 with the change if you don't reset the unit.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[natewlew1]

OK. Thanks for your help.

[Tom Watts]

Hi Nathan, just to follow up. I got my hands on a switch with 1.1.2.0 code and I pulled the OID's off the unit. It looks like all of the object names match up to what the 1.2.7.76 output has for the dot1d object names.

      dot1dBaseBridgeAddress

      dot1dBaseNumPorts

      dot1dBasePortTable

      dot1dBaseType

      dot1dDeviceCapabilities

      dot1dPortGarpTable

      dot1dPortPriorityTable

      dot1dStaticTable

      dot1dStpBridgeForwardDelay

      dot1dStpBridgeHelloTime

      dot1dStpBridgeMaxAge

      dot1dStpDesignatedRoot

      dot1dStpForwardDelay

      dot1dStpHelloTime

      dot1dStpHoldTime

      dot1dStpMaxAge

      dot1dStpPathCostDefault

      dot1dStpPortTable

      dot1dStpPriority

      dot1dStpProtocolSpecification

      dot1dStpRootCost

      dot1dStpRootPort

      dot1dStpTimeSinceTopologyChange

      dot1dStpTopChanges

      dot1dStpVersion

      dot1dTpAgingTime

      dot1dTpFdbTable

      dot1dTpPortTable

      dot1dTrafficClassTable

      dot1qFdbTable

      dot1qForwardAllTable

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[natewlew1]

That's strange. Does that mean that technically it shouldn't work on the 1.1.2.0?

[Tom Watts]

Hi Nathan, I have confirmed this in my lab. I have engaged Cisco. Here is my ticket number for tracking

624830577

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[natewlew1]

Wow! Thanks Tom.

[mduersch1]

Any updates on this?  I have the same issue.

[Tom Watts]

There's a beta firmware to address this problem. Should be out next release.

-Tom
Please mark answered for helpful posts

[mduersch1]

Thanks for the quick reply!