From: Scott M Vermillion (scott@it-ag.com)
Date: Mon Dec 08 2008 - 15:45:26 ARST
Well, as I recall, this is some strange development release of code compiled
specifically for the lab scenario, no? I guess we can't assume it's
entirely bug-free. Not entirely clear that we can assume >VSS< is bug-free
for that matter! ;~) But it's still good sport...
-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos G Mendioroz [mailto:tron@huapi.ba.ar]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:42 AM
To: Scott M Vermillion
Cc: 'Luan Nguyen'; 'CCIE Lab'
Subject: Re: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
This was on pod1 too.
I'll see if I can reproduce it, but the log of the console speaks for
itself. Nothing really strange, just the etherchannels, three vlans, ...
Scott M Vermillion @ 8/12/2008 15:36 -0200 dixit:
> Agreed. I did some extracurricular breaking of things and this was not a
> problem area. I too played around with preemption towards the end and
> verified connectivity from the c4948. My only problems were early on and
> related to a loss of connectivity to the core switch from the VSS. Seemed
> the core switch ports had gone into err-disable or something. Had to
start
> over on a new pod after an hour of frustration. Talked to another CCIE
who
> had the same issue on the same pod (Pod1) with ultimately the same fix
> action. I have a support case open on the matter and Cisco is responding,
> so that should hopefully be resolved soon...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luan Nguyen [mailto:luan@netcraftsmen.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:25 AM
> To: 'Carlos G Mendioroz'
> Cc: 'Scott M Vermillion'; 'CCIE Lab'
> Subject: RE: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
>
> Re: 2) I never had any problem with one port left the Po, and you
shouldn't
> either :)
> I would suggest to try again, ping from client 3 instead and do some debug
> on the 4948.
>
> Luan Nguyen
> Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC.
> www.NetCraftsmen.net
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos G Mendioroz [mailto:tron@huapi.ba.ar]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:54 AM
> To: Luan Nguyen
> Cc: 'Scott M Vermillion'; 'CCIE Lab'
> Subject: Re: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
>
> Luan Nguyen @ 8/12/2008 14:42 -0200 dixit:
>> 1) Those are the 6 etherchannels between the FWSM and the switch.
>> When you reload switch 1, you only see 6 for switch 2. Once everything
is
>> back, you will see 2 Pos for switch 1 and switch 2 each with 6 ports.
>
> Stupid me :) Yup, I did power down one of the FWSMs to make the
> switchover faster, that explains the asymmetry.
> I did not engage into associating the second number to the slot
> in the chasis.
>
>> 2) Not sure what you did, but if one port left the channel, that status
>> should be Te1/50(D) - D for down, and the port-channel should still
>> function.
>
> I did an etherchannel between the 4948 and one port of each 6500,
> trunking, and a ping between an SVI at the 4948 and one at the 6500.
>
> -Carlos
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Luan Nguyen
>> Chesapeake NetCraftsmen, LLC.
>> www.NetCraftsmen.net
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Carlos G Mendioroz
>> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:51 AM
>> To: Scott M Vermillion
>> Cc: 'CCIE Lab'
>> Subject: Re: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
>>
>> I've just done it (the lab).
>> There were a couple of things that I would like to understand,
>> if someone has a clue.
>>
>>
>> 1) show etherchannel summary showed some bundles that the config
>> had no hint about:
>>
>> Group Port-channel Protocol Ports
>>
>
------+-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> 1 Po1(RU) - Te1/1/4(P) Te1/1/5(P)
>> 2 Po2(RU) - Te2/1/4(P) Te2/1/5(P)
>> 3 Po3(SU) PAgP Te1/2/2(P)
>> 4 Po4(SU) LACP Gi1/3/1(P)
>> 10 Po10(RD) PAgP Te1/2/1(D)
>> 580 Po580(SD) -
>> 596 Po596(SD) -
>>
>> This is some time after a switchover.
>>
>> While stable, they showed:
>> 580 Po580(SD) -
>> 596 Po596(SU) - Gi2/4/1(P) Gi2/4/2(P) Gi2/4/3(P)
>> Gi2/4/4(P) Gi2/4/5(P) Gi2/4/6(P)
>>
>> but all Gi ports where config default.
>>
>>
>> 2) That switchover was produced by preemtion, and one of the
>> etherchannels stayed down from the 4948 perspective:
>>
>> pod1-4948-10G#ping
>> Protocol [ip]:
>> Target IP address: 10.252.11.1
>> Repeat count [5]: 1000000
>> Datagram size [100]: 4000
>> Timeout in seconds [2]:
>> Extended commands [n]:
>> Sweep range of sizes [n]:
>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>> Sending 1000000, 4000-byte ICMP Echos to 10.252.11.1, timeout is 2
> seconds:
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> 2d16h: %EC-5-UNBUNDLE: Interface TenGigabitEthernet1/50 left the
>> port-channel Po
>> rt-channel3............................................
>> ......................................................................
>> ......................................................................
>> ........
>> pod1-4948-10G#sh etherc sum
>> Flags: D - down P - in port-channel
>> I - stand-alone s - suspended
>> R - Layer3 S - Layer2
>> U - in use f - failed to allocate aggregator
>> u - unsuitable for bundling
>> w - waiting to be aggregated
>> d - default port
>>
>>
>> Number of channel-groups in use: 1
>> Number of aggregators: 1
>>
>> Group Port-channel Protocol Ports
>>
>
------+-------------+-----------+-------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> 3 Po3(SU) PAgP Te1/49(P) Te1/50(P)
>>
>> pod1-4948-10G#ping 10.252.11.1
>>
>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.252.11.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
>> .....
>> Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>>
>> Any ideas ?
>> -Carlos
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott M Vermillion @ 4/12/2008 21:55 -0200 dixit:
>>> Incidentally all, the VSS lab pods are back online and available for
>> either
>>> immediate booking or scheduled booking. I think it's great that Cisco
> has
>>> something like this and I'd sure love to see more of it (how many of us
>> have
>>> two 6500s w/ Sup 720 10GE VSS in our home labs?!). I would think one
way
>> to
>>> encourage Cisco to continue with this type of investment is to make use
> of
>>> it. Please, if you have any interest in playing around with (admittedly
>>> fairly basic) VSS and have access to PEC, take the time to do this lab.
>>> It's scheduled for four hours but can be completed in half (or less)
that
>>> time by a CCIE or CCIE lab candidate with basic proficiency of L2 and L3
>>> EtherChannels, etc. This lab even includes a shared server and a
>>> pod-specific server with VMWare hosts for connectivity testing, etc.
> It's
>>> way cool - especially given the price!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Scott M Vermillion [mailto:scott@it-ag.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:34 PM
>>> To: 'CCIE Lab'
>>> Subject: OT: GOLD Labs On PEC?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Howdy all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anybody know anything about the Global Online Lab Delivery (GOLD) labs
on
>>> Partner Education Connection (PEC)? I used to use PEC fairly often
years
>>> back but have only recently begun poking around there again. There was
a
>>> very interesting online lab listed and it was only introduced just this
>>> year. Yet every time I try to pick a date to schedule the rack I get
the
>>> following error:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "No valid equipments found for the exercise, please contact LabOps
>>> administrator."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have no idea as to how one might go about contacting the "LabOps
>>> administrator." I seem to recall that at one time they had some really
>> cool
>>> racks available and I never had any trouble scheduling one. Just
curious
>> if
>>> anybody else has recent experience with these?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just for whatever it's worth, here is the description of the lab I was
>>> interested in:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "The purpose of this lab is to introduce the student to the concept of
>> VSS,
>>> understand the conversion process, and to allow them to gain an
>> appreciation
>>> of the benefits that VSS will bring to the rest of the network.
>> Additional
>>> labs are also available to help understand advanced VSS concepts such as
>> VSS
>>> ISSU, VSS troubleshooting commands & Service module integration."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the topology and the steps involved, it looks like you would
>> gain
>>> a fairly good grasp of actually deploying a VSS. It was estimated to be
>> 240
>>> minutes in duration. All very interesting if actually available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers all,
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI ArgentinaBlogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:08 ARST