cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel

cswRingRedundant Issues

mfarrenkopf
Beginner
Beginner

We recently found a problem with a stacking cable. After resolving this issue, we decided it would be a good idea to monitor the StackWise ports on our 3750s.

Looking through the MIB, I found the cswRingRedundant object (1.3.6.1.4.1.9.9.500.1.1.3.0). It is available on our current IOS version 12.2(25)SEE2. On many of our switches, all of the StackWise ports are up and running (per IOS sh switch stack-port and per SNMP), but cswRingRedundant still returns 2 (false).

Any suggestions? This results on switches where there are definitely multiple switches in the stack (I'm not looking at a single-switch stack). We have our switches connected as per a Cisco recommended setup, whereby SW port 1 connects to SW port 2 of the next switch, then SW port 1 on that switch to SW port 2 on the next, etc., until the last switch, where SW port 1 connects to SW port 2 on the first switch.

Thank you,

Matt

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Joe Clarke
Hall of Fame Cisco Employee Hall of Fame Cisco Employee
Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

You're seeing a bug, CSCse53528. If you add a new switch, or change the redundant configuration, then change it back, the status should be correctly displayed. This is fixed in 12.2(35)SE1.

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4

mchin345
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor

A value of 'true' is returned when the stackports are connected in such a way that it forms a redundant ring."

Understood. And from the description I posted as to how we have our ports connected, it *DOES* form a redundant ring. I can remove any single connector on any switch in any of our stacks and they will remain up.

I have verified this on several of our stacks with the show platform stack-manager all command. An example (from a stack that thinks there is an issue):

Stack Port Status Neighbors

Switch# Port 1 Port 2 Port 1 Port 2

--------------------------------------------------------

1 Ok Ok 2 4

2 Ok Ok 3 1

3 Ok Ok 4 2

4 Ok Ok 1 3

So either I'm misunderstanding what the switch's definition of "a redundant ring" is, or it's returning a bad value.

Is there anything in this output that you can see that I'm missing? Because I don't see anything wrong.

Thanks,

Matt

Joe Clarke
Hall of Fame Cisco Employee Hall of Fame Cisco Employee
Hall of Fame Cisco Employee

You're seeing a bug, CSCse53528. If you add a new switch, or change the redundant configuration, then change it back, the status should be correctly displayed. This is fixed in 12.2(35)SE1.

Perfect . . . that's what I thought. I tried searching for it, but was unable to locate. Thank you very much!

Matt

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: