On 3/12/11 6:01 PM, JohnBull wrote:
I'm running 5.4.1 and really like the Layer 2 feature, but have encountered the problem 
"Unable to compute switch-to-switch connectivity using forwarding database entries 
on vlans ..."; approximately 20 of our vlans are listed.
This message appears when there is a problem determining the topology from the switch's forwarding table entries.

Please file a bug report using Help -> Send Feedback... and include the Layer 2 data and log files.

When you are not running in "limited" mode, the default setting for "connection.rules" is "fdb,stp". If you have relatively complete CDP/LLDP coverage between your switches, you can tweak the connection.rules property by entering the following command into the search text box:

#set connection.rules=fdb,cdp,lldp,stp

If you omit fdb from the connection.rules list, the algorithm that computes the topology from forwarding tables will not run at all, and you shouldn't see the warning anymore.

However, while examing the "switches.log", I noticed that one switch, 
192.168.2.16, seemed to be appearing in most, if not every, exception message:

2011-03-12 09:44:17-0800 [PoolThread-55287360-5] Unable to identify simple 
connection between [email protected] and [email protected]: results = []

[...]

The switch is a Dell PowerConnect 3448 and trunked, via fiber, to a Cisco 6509 
in a switched network.  Moreover, we're a mostly Cisco shop with other Dell 
switches that don't exhibit this problem.
Is the trunk using link aggregation? "results = []" indicates that there may be an inconsistency in the forwarding table entries that prevents the L2 engine from determining how the devices are connected over a single switch-port to switch-port connection.

You can turn on additional logging by issuing this command:

#set log.algorithm=true


--
Bill Fisher
Dartware, LLC
____________________________________________________________________
List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected]

Reply via email to