Re: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929]
hi chuck,, yeah, it is abit funny ,one thing also i noticed , that sometime i had to do a clear CDP table before this properly kicked in all my 3548`s were ok ,but some of the older 2926MXL`s need that... but i agree with you about the bug.number 1XX in an ever increasing list of bugs Cheers steve ... - Original Message - From: The Long and Winding Road To: Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 9:13 PM Subject: Re: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929] steve wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... hey.. AT Last i think i can try and properly help someone yippe.. on your switches type this message no cdp advertise V2 i have had this all over my network ..and you are correct it is a bug in CDP yep - changing to ver 1 eliminates the problem. interesting. the other part of this is the duplex issue on the 2611. CDP ver 2 claims the port is half duplex. the router and the switch claim it is full duplex. I know that originally the 2610/11 were 10 meg half, and that IOS 12.something allowed one to bring this up to full. I suspect there is still an IOS bug someplace that is involved. I do not recall this issue when I was writing my VPN tunnel lab for Cert Zone. At the time I was using my employer's engineering lab, and IIRC the routers in question were 2621 - different hardware beast. live and learn. .. according to cisco ,this isn`t a fix just a work around H(and i mean HOPE)TH steve skinner (CCxx MCxx HPxx SCxx CSxx.you know i wish i had some proper certs and not just the xx ones) - Original Message - From: The Long and Winding Road To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929] I've run into this situation while doing some practicing with the 3550s and some routers 2611--3550---35503640 all ethernet ports are set at full duplex 10 megabit speed. the 2611 and the 3640 are connected via a vlan tunnel. everything is working fine, until I turn on l2protocol-tunnel cdp on both switches, at which point I get the following error: 3640 FrameSwitch# 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not hal f duplex), with Router_14_2611 Ethernet0/1 (half duplex). 2611 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not ful l duplex), with FrameSwitch Ethernet0/1 (full duplex). as near as I can tell, there are no errors on any of the interfaces. no collisions, etc. not that I'm sending a lot of traffic during these studies, but extended pings don't come up with anything either. relevant configurations for all interfaces. as you can see, everything agrees all along the line. everyone is set for speed 10 and duplex full. if I turn off l2protocol-tuinnel cdp on the interfaces, the error messages disappear. I suspect a bug in CDP, but I'm wondering if I have missed anything. 2611 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address full-duplex ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.1 255.255.255.0 ! Switch_24#sri f0/1 Building configuration... Current configuration : 200 bytes ! interface FastEthernet0/1 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end interface FastEthernet0/26 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end 3640 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address no ip redirects full-duplex priority-group 1 ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.2 255.255.255.0 ! Chuck -- TANSTAAFL there ain't no such thing as a free lunch Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=60453t=59929 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929]
hey.. AT Last i think i can try and properly help someone yippe.. on your switches type this message no cdp advertise V2 i have had this all over my network ..and you are correct it is a bug in CDP .. according to cisco ,this isn`t a fix just a work around H(and i mean HOPE)TH steve skinner (CCxx MCxx HPxx SCxx CSxx.you know i wish i had some proper certs and not just the xx ones) - Original Message - From: The Long and Winding Road To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929] I've run into this situation while doing some practicing with the 3550s and some routers 2611--3550---35503640 all ethernet ports are set at full duplex 10 megabit speed. the 2611 and the 3640 are connected via a vlan tunnel. everything is working fine, until I turn on l2protocol-tunnel cdp on both switches, at which point I get the following error: 3640 FrameSwitch# 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not hal f duplex), with Router_14_2611 Ethernet0/1 (half duplex). 2611 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not ful l duplex), with FrameSwitch Ethernet0/1 (full duplex). as near as I can tell, there are no errors on any of the interfaces. no collisions, etc. not that I'm sending a lot of traffic during these studies, but extended pings don't come up with anything either. relevant configurations for all interfaces. as you can see, everything agrees all along the line. everyone is set for speed 10 and duplex full. if I turn off l2protocol-tuinnel cdp on the interfaces, the error messages disappear. I suspect a bug in CDP, but I'm wondering if I have missed anything. 2611 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address full-duplex ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.1 255.255.255.0 ! Switch_24#sri f0/1 Building configuration... Current configuration : 200 bytes ! interface FastEthernet0/1 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end interface FastEthernet0/26 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end 3640 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address no ip redirects full-duplex priority-group 1 ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.2 255.255.255.0 ! Chuck -- TANSTAAFL there ain't no such thing as a free lunch Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=60212t=59929 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929]
steve wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... hey.. AT Last i think i can try and properly help someone yippe.. on your switches type this message no cdp advertise V2 i have had this all over my network ..and you are correct it is a bug in CDP yep - changing to ver 1 eliminates the problem. interesting. the other part of this is the duplex issue on the 2611. CDP ver 2 claims the port is half duplex. the router and the switch claim it is full duplex. I know that originally the 2610/11 were 10 meg half, and that IOS 12.something allowed one to bring this up to full. I suspect there is still an IOS bug someplace that is involved. I do not recall this issue when I was writing my VPN tunnel lab for Cert Zone. At the time I was using my employer's engineering lab, and IIRC the routers in question were 2621 - different hardware beast. live and learn. .. according to cisco ,this isn`t a fix just a work around H(and i mean HOPE)TH steve skinner (CCxx MCxx HPxx SCxx CSxx.you know i wish i had some proper certs and not just the xx ones) - Original Message - From: The Long and Winding Road To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929] I've run into this situation while doing some practicing with the 3550s and some routers 2611--3550---35503640 all ethernet ports are set at full duplex 10 megabit speed. the 2611 and the 3640 are connected via a vlan tunnel. everything is working fine, until I turn on l2protocol-tunnel cdp on both switches, at which point I get the following error: 3640 FrameSwitch# 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not hal f duplex), with Router_14_2611 Ethernet0/1 (half duplex). 2611 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not ful l duplex), with FrameSwitch Ethernet0/1 (full duplex). as near as I can tell, there are no errors on any of the interfaces. no collisions, etc. not that I'm sending a lot of traffic during these studies, but extended pings don't come up with anything either. relevant configurations for all interfaces. as you can see, everything agrees all along the line. everyone is set for speed 10 and duplex full. if I turn off l2protocol-tuinnel cdp on the interfaces, the error messages disappear. I suspect a bug in CDP, but I'm wondering if I have missed anything. 2611 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address full-duplex ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.1 255.255.255.0 ! Switch_24#sri f0/1 Building configuration... Current configuration : 200 bytes ! interface FastEthernet0/1 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end interface FastEthernet0/26 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end 3640 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address no ip redirects full-duplex priority-group 1 ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.2 255.255.255.0 ! Chuck -- TANSTAAFL there ain't no such thing as a free lunch Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=60230t=59929 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929]
steve wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... hey.. AT Last i think i can try and properly help someone yippe.. on your switches type this message no cdp advertise V2 i have had this all over my network ..and you are correct it is a bug in CDP yep - changing to ver 1 eliminates the problem. interesting. the other part of this is the duplex issue on the 2611. CDP ver 2 claims the port is half duplex. the router and the switch claim it is full duplex. I know that originally the 2610/11 were 10 meg half, and that IOS 12.something allowed one to bring this up to full. I suspect there is still an IOS bug someplace that is involved. I do not recall this issue when I was writing my VPN tunnel lab for Cert Zone. At the time I was using my employer's engineering lab, and IIRC the routers in question were 2621 - different hardware beast. live and learn. .. according to cisco ,this isn`t a fix just a work around H(and i mean HOPE)TH steve skinner (CCxx MCxx HPxx SCxx CSxx.you know i wish i had some proper certs and not just the xx ones) - Original Message - From: The Long and Winding Road To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:06 AM Subject: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929] I've run into this situation while doing some practicing with the 3550s and some routers 2611--3550---35503640 all ethernet ports are set at full duplex 10 megabit speed. the 2611 and the 3640 are connected via a vlan tunnel. everything is working fine, until I turn on l2protocol-tunnel cdp on both switches, at which point I get the following error: 3640 FrameSwitch# 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not hal f duplex), with Router_14_2611 Ethernet0/1 (half duplex). 2611 1w0d: %CDP-4-DUPLEX_MISMATCH: duplex mismatch discovered on Ethernet0/1 (not ful l duplex), with FrameSwitch Ethernet0/1 (full duplex). as near as I can tell, there are no errors on any of the interfaces. no collisions, etc. not that I'm sending a lot of traffic during these studies, but extended pings don't come up with anything either. relevant configurations for all interfaces. as you can see, everything agrees all along the line. everyone is set for speed 10 and duplex full. if I turn off l2protocol-tuinnel cdp on the interfaces, the error messages disappear. I suspect a bug in CDP, but I'm wondering if I have missed anything. 2611 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address full-duplex ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.1 255.255.255.0 ! Switch_24#sri f0/1 Building configuration... Current configuration : 200 bytes ! interface FastEthernet0/1 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end interface FastEthernet0/26 switchport access vlan 100 switchport mode dot1q-tunnel no ip address duplex full speed 10 l2protocol-tunnel cdp no cdp enable spanning-tree bpdufilter enable end 3640 --- interface Ethernet0/1 no ip address no ip redirects full-duplex priority-group 1 ! interface Ethernet0/1.1 encapsulation dot1Q 121 ip address 122.1.1.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.2 encapsulation dot1Q 122 ip address 122.1.2.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.3 encapsulation dot1Q 123 ip address 122.1.3.2 255.255.255.0 ! interface Ethernet0/1.4 encapsulation dot1Q 124 ip address 122.1.4.2 255.255.255.0 ! Chuck -- TANSTAAFL there ain't no such thing as a free lunch Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=60230t=59929 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible CDP bug? Check it out! [7:59929]
Try setting the speed on the router interfaces. I've run into this before where the Ether ports were still trying to negotiate the speed even though the switchport may be hard set to 10 / full. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=59966t=59929 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
