Just in case anybody is remotely interested - I didn't get one guess on this problem almost 2 months ago. Today we solved it - well at least got it to work.
>From my email below the salient issue was that a trace showed that broadcasts were made by the application. In buildings that had a Cat5000 - it answered with an unreachable message and the application stopped. In other buildings without a Cat5000, the broadcasts were still made but nothing answered and the application worked. Today from the software vendor we were advised of a configuration switch that turned off the broadcast. Now the application works in any building on W2K Pro. (It worked before from any building on Win95 / NT 4 without the config switch) So........ I should be happy - the migration goes on. But, why does a Cat5000 answer a broadcast?? Why doesn't it just shut up like all the other devices on the net? Since when does it participate in the conversation and not just be the relayer??? That question may linger for a long long time.................... Kevin Wigle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wigle" To: Sent: Friday, 07 September, 2001 17:47 Subject: OT: slightly [7:19060] > Dear Group, > > Have a problem that is puzzling. > > I am preparing to rollout W2K Pro across a very large organization which > covers many buildings in a large city. The vast majority of > switches/routers in the enterprise are Cisco. > > The support group uses an application called Support Magic to log trouble > tickets and the normal help desk activities. > > There is one central database and all help desk agents connect to it from > any building. > > The building I'm working in has a Cat5000 as the main switch sitting in > front of a Cisco 4000 router. > > When I try to start Support Magic, on a sniffer I can see that the > application makes a mac level broadcast seeking port 1498. > > Then it makes an IP subnet broadcast looking for port 1498. > > At this time the Cat5000 replies with a port unreachable and the W2K machine > stops looking. > > However, in the odbc.ini there is an entry for where the database is. > > On the same hub is a NT4 workstation. When I sniff it's connection to > Support Magic it also receives the port unreachable message from the Cat5000 > but then it goes on to connect. > > So, I go to another building. We carry the same W2K PC with us and the > laptop sniffer. > > We plug everything in and the trace is the same except nothing returns an > unreachable message and the connection succeeds. I don't know what kind of > switch is in this building but it shouldn't be a Cat5000 as only 40 people > work there. I believe the router is a 2501 but I'm trying to find out > exactly what the infrastructure is. > > We go to another building. This building has a cat 6509. We set up, do the > trace and again - no unreachable message and the connection works. Don't > know what the router is yet. > > On the face of it, it seems that W2K/Support Magic gets the unreachable msg > and then stops trying although the address it needs is hardcoded. > > Which is weird because NT4/Support Magic works. > > And W2K/Support Magic works in a building that doesn't have a Cat5000. > > I will be chasing more of this down again on Monday by visiting other > buildings and getting the infrastructure info to make comparisons. > Unfortunately as a support organization - this application is mission > critical so it is a show stopper for the migration. > > So one of my questions is..... why does the Cat5000 answer the broadcast > saying "I don't have this". Why doesn't it ignore it like the other devices > on the network? (so far it is the only device to return an unreachable msg). > The Cat5000 is not the default gateway for the building. > > The IP address of the server can be pinged regardless of what Support Magic > does. > > Have not gone to Cisco, Microsoft or Support Magic yet with questions. We > want to build a good history to present first. You can imagine that with 3 > possible vendors to blame that we need a good description of the case. > > But just in case someone out there has already bumped into this........... > > Can this behaviour be turned off? > > What is different between the Cat6509 and the Cat5000? (besides the obvious > hardware...) > > Any guesses ? > > tia > > Kevin Wigle Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=24735&t=19060 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
