----- Original Message ----- From: "Bennett, Joshua" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:36 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues
> Not really an option. > > The scenario is this: > The one remote server is in San Diego that used to be connected to > the other remote server in Irvine, CA by an X.400 connector over a T1. > The only server that was connected to the hub server on the E. Coast was > the one in Irvine. There was an X.400 connector between SD and Irvine, then > an X.400 connector to the EC. There is now an separate X.400 > connector from SD and Irvine to the hub server. The Irvine server > has an IMC that was used by the old company (that was bought by us). The > cost on the connectors to the hub server from each site is set to 1. > The old connector from SD to Irvine has a cost of 100. The IMC on > Irvine is set to 99. I would like to remove the old connector from > SD-Irvine but, the connectors from each remote site to the hub server is > sooooooo erratic that I have mail that routes from SD-Irvine-out the > IMC in Irvine then back to the hub server on the E. Coast through the > corporate IMC. > > There is the jist of what I am going through. It is driving me nuts trying > to troubleshoot this. > > Please help..... > > Josh > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > What is it about your routing table that is causing the looping messages? Is > it possible for you to remove redundant routes, even just one or two, to see > what happens? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:56 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > Yes, the queues back up for an hour or so then flush clean in > > a 2 minute > > span once the X.400 connection is successful. However, due to > > the way the > > routing table is, I have messages flowing in a roundabout fashion. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:35 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > IIRC, you're getting "exceeded the maximum number of > > associations" which > > usually indicates that the total number of connections and > > associations, > > which I believe is 9 associations and 10 connects per association. > > > > Are you sure there aren't any looping messages, or a butload of public > > folder replication traffic? Is there anything in the MTA queue? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:11 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > I've adjusted the number of control blocks the MTA has available and > > > again, it did not correct the situation. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:47 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > The previous suggestion about tuning the MTA stack is where I'd > > > start. The best reference is Managing Exchange 5.5 by Paul > > > Robichaux, if you have that > > > handy. If not, the parameter I think you're looking for is > > > called control > > > blocks. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:24 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > I use "supposed to be" due to the issue at hand that is > > driving me > > > > insane. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace "supposed to be" with "definitely are" > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:27 PM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These servers are all connected by WAN links and X.400 > > > > connectors are > > > > > supposed to be more resilient to network interruptions. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:19 AM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: Re: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious as to why you are using X400 instead of Site > > > Connectors. Yes > > > > > x400 are more efficient just curious. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Darcy Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:06 AM > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd think twice about that one - if you have a multi-site > > > > > > organization, > > > > > any directory replication connectors that depend on those X400 > > > > > connectors will have to be either pointed to another > > connector in > > > > > the same site, or > > > > > deleted before you can delete the connector. > > > > > > > > > > > > And, if you delete the dirrep connector, be prepared to > > > > rebuild any > > > > > cross-site distribution lists after you recreate the connectors > > > > > (X400 and dirrep). > > > > > > > > > > > > Darcy > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:24 AM > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have tried everything that you have described and to > > > no avail. I > > > > > received > > > > > > a suggestion to remove the connectors and rebuild the > > > TCP stack in > > > > > Exchange > > > > > > to clear this up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any opinions on this idea... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:02 PM > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 57: the other MTA has a limit on the number of available > > > > connections > > > > > > 289: because of that limit, a connection to that MTA > > > could not be > > > > > > opened > > > > > > 1290: somewhat a repeat of 289, but more info > > > > > > 9202: low-level diagnostic on the connection failure > > > > > > > > > > > > In general this sequence of events can be ignored if mail > > > > otherwise > > > > > > flows. It's a temporary condition. If it keeps happening > > > > > over and over > > > > > > and the queue to that MTA keeps backing up then you'll need to > > > > > > actually > > > > > troubleshoot > > > > > > what is wrong (i.e. raise the number of connections on the > > > > > other MTA > > > > > > if > > > > > you > > > > > > have control over it). > > > > > > > > > > > > Precht, do you ever add anything of value? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions@;entrysecurity.com] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 1:45 PM > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > www.eventid.net > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf > > > Of Bennett, > > > > > > Joshua > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:05 > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning > > > > Category: X.400 > > > > > Service > > > > > > The limit on the number of associations allowed to and > > > from entity > > > > > > (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA > > > XFER-IN 19 > > > > > > 34](12) > > > > > > > > > > > > Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning > > > > Category: X.400 > > > > > Service > > > > > > A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA > > > > XFER-IN 19 > > > > > > 26](12) > > > > > > > > > > > > Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning > > > > > Category: X.400 > > > > > > Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was > > > > > > refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the > > > reason was 0. > > > > > > Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) > > > > > > > > > > > > Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: > > > > > > Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] > > call was > > > > > > detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets > > > connection. > > > > > > Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the > > > one remote > > > > > > server with the same symptoms, the other server just > > > > > produces the 289 > > > > > > event id only. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: RE: X.400 issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random > > > > > odd event ID > > > > > > or guestimate what "too long"[1] means. It there any > > > > chance you (the > > > > > collective > > > > > > you) could include the Event ID source and description in > > > > > addition to > > > > > > the number? And that you could provide an example of > > > > sent/ received > > > > > > times > > > > > which > > > > > > constitute a "too long" delivery time. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO > > > > > config which > > > > > > routinely resulted in >8 hour delivery times of mail from > > > > the US to > > > > > > Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours > > > > > and the mail > > > > > wasn't > > > > > > delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett@;cotelligent.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM > > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I > > > > > can't seem > > > > > > > to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the > > > > > errors I am > > > > > > > seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my setup: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all > > > > > hotfixes on all > > > > > > > these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration > > > within my EX > > > > > > > org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 > > > > > connectors) to a > > > > > > > central EX server that serves as my IMS to the > > > internet. All the > > > > > > > spoke servers > > > > > > > > > > > > > are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member > > > server in a > > > > > > > central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts > > > > > to. All the > > > > > > > remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected > > > > to the hub > > > > > > > server by full T1 lines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My issue is this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event > > > > > ID: 289 is > > > > > > > written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and > > > > > all mail is > > > > > > > delivered without incident. This seems to occur about > > > every 10 > > > > > > > minutes > > > > > > > > > > > > > or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at > > > > > least on the > > > > > > > surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore > > > > > these errors, > > > > > > > as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the > > > > > beginning of a > > > > > > > major issue about to explode in my lap? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and > > > > > come up with > > > > > > > little to no help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh Bennett > > > > > > > Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer > > > > > > > Cotelligent, Inc. > > > > > > > 401 Parkway Drive > > > > > > > Broomall, PA. 19008 > > > > > > > 610-359-5929 > > > > > > > www.cotelligent.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > > Archives: > > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================= > > > > > > This email and its contents are confidential. If you > > are not the > > > > > > intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the > > > > > > information within this email or its > > > > attachments. If you > > > > > > have received this email in error, please delete it > > immediately. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > ======================================================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > Archives: > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > Archives: > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
