Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About droeun141
Stats
Member since
03-25-2010
127
Posts
12
Helpful
7
Solutions
06-03-2011
06:26 AM
Two of our four nexus boxes are reporting 50% CPU utilization for the SNMP daemon alone. We tried removing the community string and narrowing the SNMP ACL down to only one box but it's still pegged. Ran a debug and this is the output - any thoughts? 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.715113 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.715340 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.718268 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.718349 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.718626 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.722848 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.722891 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.723058 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.726102 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.726181 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.726395 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.729513 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.729589 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.729817 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.732766 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.732850 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.733064 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.736000 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.736083 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.736296 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.739337 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.739409 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.740493 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.743457 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Failed to recv: rc(-1) errno(12) 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.743539 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - recv returned: rc(-1) on ctx[vdc:0 vrf:0 top:0] 2011 Jun 2 15:44:33.743762 snmpd: netsnmp_udp_recv : TRACE - Starting to recv
... View more
Labels:
04-12-2011
07:52 AM
Thanks Jon, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of filtering BPDU's? Please forgive me if I sound ignorant. Also, is the behavior the same on non-portfast enabled ports?
... View more
04-12-2011
04:33 AM
Found this on Cisco's website: At the global level, you can enable BPDU filtering on Port Fast-enabled interfaces by using the spanning-tree portfast bpdufilter default global configuration command. This command prevents interfaces that are in a Port Fast-operational state from sending or receiving BPDUs. The interfaces still send a few BPDUs at link-up before the switch begins to filter outbound BPDUs. You should globally enable BPDU filtering on a switch so that hosts connected to these interfaces do not receive BPDUs. If a BPDU is received on a Port Fast-enabled interface, the interface loses its Port Fast-operational status, and BPDU filtering is disabled. It says the command prevents the interface from sending or receiving BPDU's, but at the same time says that if a BPDU is received, the interfaces loses portfast status and BPDU filtering is disabled. Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of the command?
... View more
Labels:
02-08-2011
04:11 AM
Peter, as always, thank you for the detailed response! The question originally stems from an article I stumbled across that described the CST root placement inside the region: It's under scenario 3 - PVST+ and MSTP interoperation: http://blog.ine.com/2010/02/22/understanding-mstp/#MSTP_MULTI_SCENARIO3
... View more
02-07-2011
07:26 AM
Since Cisco doesn't allow the CST root to be outside the region when interacting with a PVST+ switch, does that also mean that only one MST region can be presesnt? (imagine MST region A connected to MST region C through region B which only runs PVST+). If there are two, wouldn't they both be requird to have the CST root inside their own respective regions? Thank you for any clarification!
... View more
Labels:
01-12-2011
06:38 PM
Thanks Gurpreet - I undstand that though... but my question was what if a loop was created on switch B? (ports 9 & 10 on switch B inadvertently connected), and B has spanning tree turned off. BPDU from switch A reaches B on 1/1 and gets looped on ports 9 & 10 on switch B before going back out 1/1 and hitting switch A again. What happens then?
... View more
01-12-2011
12:04 PM
Yeah only except A & C don't connect directly to each other, only through switch B which has STP disabled
... View more
01-12-2011
11:22 AM
Have you tried using policy NAT? Try this: access-list HTTP permit tcp 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 any eq 80 access-list HTTP permit tcp 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 any eq 443 nat (inside) 1 access-list HTTP global (outside) 1 172.16.199.3 netmask 255.255.255.192
... View more
01-12-2011
11:09 AM
Say switch A and C are connected via switch B (which has spanning-tree disabled) and a loop is created on B. What does switch A do when it receives inferior BPDU's from itself?
... View more
Labels:
01-11-2011
08:31 AM
Ahh it makes sense now! At first I thought regional ports were elected only when talking to other MST regions. But if the same is true for anything at the boundry then it makes sense now. Thanks Peter!
... View more
01-11-2011
07:59 AM
Are regional roots elected when connecting to standard STP/PVST+ switches too?
... View more
01-11-2011
06:27 AM
I am confused about single vs mult-region MST. I know that in single region, the IST root is elected by the lowest bridge priority. But in multi-region, there is also an additional root bridge election (regional root) with lowest cost path to the CST root. The regional root also becomes the IST root for each given region, regardless of bridge priority. What is the purpose behind this? why does each region need a regional root and why can't they just function using the IST root instead? Thank you for any help in understanding.
... View more
Labels:
06-03-2011
Two of our four nexus boxes are reporting 50% CPU utilization for the
SNMP daemon alone. We tried re...
04-12-2011
Thanks Jon, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of filtering BPDU's?
Please forgive me if I sound ig...
04-12-2011
Found this on Cisco's website:At the global level, you can enable BPDU
filtering on Port Fast-enable...
02-08-2011
Peter, as always, thank you for the detailed response! The question
originally stems from an article...
02-07-2011
Since Cisco doesn't allow the CST root to be outside the region when
interacting with a PVST+ switch...
01-12-2011
Have you tried using policy NAT? Try this:access-list HTTP permit tcp
10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 any eq 80ac...
01-11-2011
Ahh it makes sense now! At first I thought regional ports were elected
only when talking to other MS...
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 03-25-2010 05:02 AM |
| Date Last Visited | 08-18-2017 03:54 AM |
| Total Messages Posted | 127 |
| Total Helpful Votes Received | 12 |
