Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[RickG]

http://www.lindy-usa.com/rj45-port-block-10-pieces-with-keys-40470.html

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com> wrote:

> Finally I found out what happened - the customer's tech was having a
> problem with setting up a static public IP address on his little Linksys
> WiFi router on our Mikrotik port that was set up as a CPE  - router, DHCP,
> NAT, etc.
>
> So he simply went to our equipment enclosure and plugged into a bridged
> port!
>
> His router has some kind of problem that will bring our network down if
> it's directly connected.  He won't do that again.  Time for a lock on the
> enclosure...
>
> And we still need to route our fast-growing network.
>
> Turns out this wasn't an Ubiquiti/Netonix/Mikrotik problem at all.
>
> Thanks for listening!   :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Kees H <wi...@calbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> I’d put my money on a false positive.
>> (a negative in this case)
>>
>> *From:* James Wilson
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:47 AM
>> *To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!
>>
>> The stations are in router mode, that;s one of the reasons why this is a
>> surprise...  Still doing a post mortem.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Shawn C. Peppers <
>> videodirectwispal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This kind of thing is why i am a huge fan of putting the station device
>>> in router mode.  Customers connecting layer2 to my tower setup has always
>>> seemed a bad idea to me.
>>>
>>> Shawn C. Peppers
>>> Video Direct Satellite & Entertainment
>>> 866-680-8433 <(866)%20680-8433> Toll Free
>>> 480-287-9960 <(480)%20287-9960> Fax
>>> http://www.video-direct.tv
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something
>>> remotely with a static public IP address.
>>>
>>> Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that
>>> Netonix caught.
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce" <spie...@avolve.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry
>>>> I
>>>> was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
>>>> > Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up
>>>> something.
>>>> >>  Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>>>> >> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" <eric-l...@truenet.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running
>>>> >>> RSTP
>>>> >>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
>>>> >>> went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6
>>>> >>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
>>>> >>> AirOS only
>>>> >>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles <csoi...@riocities.net>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
>>>> >>> segment
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Chris Soiles
>>>> >>> Owner
>>>> >>> Rio Cities
>>>> >>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
>>>> >>>
>>>> >

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Eric Tykwinski]

Just a heads up, this was specific to my little SG300 at home, switched it to 
mode stp and worked fine.  C3750X as worked like expected, so a bug in the SG 
series though I doubt many would use it production.

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Eric Tykwinski  wrote:
> 
> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running RSTP on 
> the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never went to 
> blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6 for STP.  Weird 
> part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think AirOS only supports STP.   
> I might dig a bit further later on…
> 


___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

:)

On Jan 27, 2017 7:24 PM, "James Williams via Ubnt_users" <
ubnt_users@wispa.org> wrote:

> Good to know James.  Thanks for the feedback!
>
> Jim Williams
> Support Manager
> Ubiquiti Networks
> jim.willi...@ubnt.com
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
> wrote:
>
> Finally I found out what happened - the customer's tech was having a
> problem with setting up a static public IP address on his little Linksys
> WiFi router on our Mikrotik port that was set up as a CPE - router, DHCP,
> NAT, etc.
>
> So he simply went to our equipment enclosure and plugged into a bridged
> port!
>
> His router has some kind of problem that will bring our network down if
> it's directly connected. He won't do that again. Time for a lock on the
> enclosure...
>
> And we still need to route our fast-growing network.
>
> Turns out this wasn't an Ubiquiti/Netonix/Mikrotik problem at all.
>
> Thanks for listening! :)
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Kees H <wi...@calbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> I’d put my money on a false positive.
>> (a negative in this case)
>> *From:* James Wilson
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:47 AM
>> *To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!
>> The stations are in router mode, that;s one of the reasons why this is a
>> surprise... Still doing a post mortem.
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Shawn C. Peppers <
>> videodirectwispal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This kind of thing is why i am a huge fan of putting the station device
>>> in router mode. Customers connecting layer2 to my tower setup has always
>>> seemed a bad idea to me.
>>>
>>> Shawn C. Peppers
>>> Video Direct Satellite & Entertainment
>>> 866-680-8433 <(866)%20680-8433> Toll Free
>>> 480-287-9960 <(480)%20287-9960> Fax
>>> http://www.video-direct.tv
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something
>>> remotely with a static public IP address.
>>> Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that
>>> Netonix caught.
>>> On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce" <spie...@avolve.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry
>>>> I
>>>> was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
>>>> > Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up
>>>> something.
>>>> >> Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>>>> >> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" <eric-l...@truenet.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6. Running
>>>> >>> RSTP
>>>> >>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
>>>> >>> went to blocked on either port. I think there might be a bug in v6
>>>> >>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
>>>> >>> AirOS only
>>>> >>> supports STP. I might dig a bit further later on…
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles <csoi...@riocities.net>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
>>>> >>> segment
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Chris Soiles
>>>> >>> Owner
>>>> >>> Rio Cities

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Williams via Ubnt_users]

Good to know James. Thanks for the feedback!

Jim Williams Support Manager Ubiquiti Networks jim.willi...@ubnt.com
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com> wrote:
Finally I found out what happened - the customer's tech was having a problem 
with setting up a static public IP address on his little Linksys WiFi router on 
our Mikrotik port that was set up as a CPE - router, DHCP, NAT, etc.
So he simply went to our equipment enclosure and plugged into a bridged port!
His router has some kind of problem that will bring our network down if it's 
directly connected. He won't do that again. Time for a lock on the enclosure...
And we still need to route our fast-growing network.
Turns out this wasn't an Ubiquiti/Netonix/Mikrotik problem at all.
Thanks for listening! :)
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Kees H < wi...@calbroadband.com 
[wi...@calbroadband.com] > wrote:
I’d put my money on a false positive. (a negative in this case) From: James 
Wilson Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:47 AM To: Ubiquiti Users Group 
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Help! The stations are in router mode, that;s one of 
the reasons why this is a surprise... Still doing a post mortem. On Thu, Jan 
26, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Shawn C. Peppers < videodirectwispal...@gmail.com > wrote:
This kind of thing is why i am a huge fan of putting the station device in 
router mode. Customers connecting layer2 to my tower setup has always seemed a 
bad idea to me.

Shawn C. Peppers Video Direct Satellite & Entertainment 866-680-8433 
[tel:(866)%20680-8433] Toll Free 480-287-9960 [tel:(480)%20287-9960] Fax 
http://www.video-direct.tv [http://www.video-direct.tv]
On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:28 AM, James Wilson < ja...@ridgecomms.com > wrote:

Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something remotely with 
a static public IP address. Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that 
caused a loop that Netonix caught. On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce" < 
spie...@avolve.net > wrote:
99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry I
was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.

On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
> Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson < ja...@ridgecomms.com >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
>> Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" < eric-l...@truenet.com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6. Running
>>> RSTP
>>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
>>> went to blocked on either port. I think there might be a bug in v6
>>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
>>> AirOS only
>>> supports STP. I might dig a bit further later on…
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles < csoi...@riocities.net >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>>
>>>
>>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
>>> segment
>>>
>>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Soiles
>>> Owner
>>> Rio Cities
>>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389 [tel:505-966-6389]
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson < ja...@ridgecomms.com >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports. This is strange -
>>> these devices have been working together for a year.
>>>
>>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device. ???
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank for coming to the rescue! :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson < ja...@ridgecomms.com >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in
>>>> the Devices/Configuration page. So far ok...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls
>>>>> going to this tower, both of which go to the same collision
>>

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

Finally I found out what happened - the customer's tech was having a
problem with setting up a static public IP address on his little Linksys
WiFi router on our Mikrotik port that was set up as a CPE  - router, DHCP,
NAT, etc.

So he simply went to our equipment enclosure and plugged into a bridged
port!

His router has some kind of problem that will bring our network down if
it's directly connected.  He won't do that again.  Time for a lock on the
enclosure...

And we still need to route our fast-growing network.

Turns out this wasn't an Ubiquiti/Netonix/Mikrotik problem at all.

Thanks for listening!   :)

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Kees H <wi...@calbroadband.com> wrote:

> I’d put my money on a false positive.
> (a negative in this case)
>
> *From:* James Wilson
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:47 AM
> *To:* Ubiquiti Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!
>
> The stations are in router mode, that;s one of the reasons why this is a
> surprise...  Still doing a post mortem.
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Shawn C. Peppers <
> videodirectwispal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This kind of thing is why i am a huge fan of putting the station device
>> in router mode.  Customers connecting layer2 to my tower setup has always
>> seemed a bad idea to me.
>>
>> Shawn C. Peppers
>> Video Direct Satellite & Entertainment
>> 866-680-8433 <(866)%20680-8433> Toll Free
>> 480-287-9960 <(480)%20287-9960> Fax
>> http://www.video-direct.tv
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something remotely
>> with a static public IP address.
>>
>> Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that
>> Netonix caught.
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce" <spie...@avolve.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry I
>>> was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.
>>>
>>> On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
>>> > Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up
>>> something.
>>> >>  Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>>> >> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" <eric-l...@truenet.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running
>>> >>> RSTP
>>> >>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
>>> >>> went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6
>>> >>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
>>> >>> AirOS only
>>> >>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles <csoi...@riocities.net>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
>>> >>> segment
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Chris Soiles
>>> >>> Owner
>>> >>> Rio Cities
>>> >>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange -
>>> >>> these devices have been working together for a year.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>>> >>> protection.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Don't see how I could get a loop in on

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Kees H]

I’d put my money on a false positive.
(a negative in this case)

From: James Wilson 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 6:47 AM
To: Ubiquiti Users Group 
Subject: Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

The stations are in router mode, that;s one of the reasons why this is a 
surprise...  Still doing a post mortem.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Shawn C. Peppers 
<videodirectwispal...@gmail.com> wrote:

  This kind of thing is why i am a huge fan of putting the station device in 
router mode.  Customers connecting layer2 to my tower setup has always seemed a 
bad idea to me.

  Shawn C. Peppers 
  Video Direct Satellite & Entertainment
  866-680-8433 Toll Free
  480-287-9960 Fax
  http://www.video-direct.tv

  On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:28 AM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com> wrote:


Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something remotely 
with a static public IP address. 

Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that 
Netonix caught.

On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce" <spie...@avolve.net> wrote:

  99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry I
  was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.

  On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
  > Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
  >
  >
  > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
  > wrote:
  >
  >
  >> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
  >>  Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
  >> something he did somehow caused a loop.
  >>
  >> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" <eric-l...@truenet.com>
  >> wrote:
  >>
  >>
  >>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running
  >>> RSTP
  >>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
  >>> went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6
  >>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
  >>> AirOS only
  >>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles <csoi...@riocities.net>
  >>> wrote:
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
  >>> segment
  >>>
  >>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> Chris Soiles
  >>> Owner
  >>> Rio Cities
  >>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
  >>> wrote:
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange -
  >>> these devices have been working together for a year.
  >>>
  >>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
  >>> protection.
  >>>
  >>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
  >>>
  >>>
  >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson <ja...@ridgecomms.com>
  >>> wrote:
  >>>
  >>>
  >>>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in
  >>>> the Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
  >>>>
  >>>>
  >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
  >>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
  >>>>
  >>>>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls
  >>>>> going to this tower, both of which go to the same collision
  >>>>> domain) you can disable port 2 from the STP.
  >>>>>
  >>>>>
  >>>>> Josh Luthman
  >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
  >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
  >>>>> 1100 Wayne St
  >>>>> Suite 1337
  >>>>> Troy, OH 45373
  >>>>>
  >>>>>
  >>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Shawn C. Peppers]

This kind of thing is why i am a huge fan of putting the station device in 
router mode.  Customers connecting layer2 to my tower setup has always seemed a 
bad idea to me.

Shawn C. Peppers
Video Direct Satellite & Entertainment
866-680-8433 Toll Free
480-287-9960 Fax
http://www.video-direct.tv

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 5:28 AM, James Wilson  wrote:
> 
> Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something remotely 
> with a static public IP address.
> 
> Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that 
> Netonix caught.
> 
>> On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce"  wrote:
>> 99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry I
>> was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.
>> 
>> On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
>> > Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
>> >>  Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>> >> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running
>> >>> RSTP
>> >>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
>> >>> went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6
>> >>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
>> >>> AirOS only
>> >>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
>> >>> segment
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Chris Soiles
>> >>> Owner
>> >>> Rio Cities
>> >>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange -
>> >>> these devices have been working together for a year.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>> >>> protection.
>> >>>
>> >>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>  I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in
>>  the Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>> 
>> 
>>  On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>  j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls
>> > going to this tower, both of which go to the same collision
>> > domain) you can disable port 2 from the STP.
>> >
>> >
>> > Josh Luthman
>> > Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>> > Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>> > 1100 Wayne St
>> > Suite 1337
>> > Troy, OH 45373
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson
>> > 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a
>> >> Netonix
>> >> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix
>> >> switch turns off the AF5X's port.
>> >>
>> >> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the
>> >> AF 5X
>> >> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!
>> >> :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop
>> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> >> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop
>> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> >> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop
>> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> >> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop
>> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> >> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop
>> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> >> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Stuart Pierce]

But if they are behind a router with a public ip, whatever they do is
contained to that ip. Unless they can change their public ip at will or
use a port used by something else still it's their ip.

On Thu, January 26, 2017 6:28 am, James Wilson wrote:
> Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something remotely
>  with a static public IP address.
>
> Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that
> Netonix caught.
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce"  wrote:
>
>
>> 99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry
>> I
>> was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.
>>
>> On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
>>
>>> Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up
 something. Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs
 are routed) something he did somehow caused a loop.

 On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" 
 wrote:



> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.
> Running
> RSTP
> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it
> never went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a
> bug in v6 for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp,
> and I think AirOS only
> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles 
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>
>
>
> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
> segment
>
> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>
>
>
> Chris Soiles
> Owner
> Rio Cities
> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange
> -
> these devices have been working together for a year.
>
> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
> protection.
>
> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>
>
>
> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson
> 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection
>> in the Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two
>>> backhauls going to this tower, both of which go to the same
>>> collision domain) you can disable port 2 from the STP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.



 Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a
  Netonix
 switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix
 switch turns off the AF5X's port.

 Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how
 the AF 5X
 that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!
 Thanks!
 :)




 Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2
 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:42:39
 Loop
 protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2
 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:46:40
 Loop
 protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2
 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:06:05
 Loop
 protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2
 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:09:40
 Loop
 protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2
 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:18:18
 Loop
 protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2
 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

Stuart he was simply trying to set up a way to control something remotely
with a static public IP address.

Apparently one of us was doing something wrong that caused a loop that
Netonix caught.

On Jan 26, 2017 6:24 AM, "Stuart Pierce"  wrote:

> 99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry I
> was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.
>
> On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
> > Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson 
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
> >>  Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
> >> something he did somehow caused a loop.
> >>
> >> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running
> >>> RSTP
> >>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
> >>> went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6
> >>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
> >>> AirOS only
> >>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
> >>> segment
> >>>
> >>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chris Soiles
> >>> Owner
> >>> Rio Cities
> >>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange -
> >>> these devices have been working together for a year.
> >>>
> >>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
> >>> protection.
> >>>
> >>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>  I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in
>  the Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
> 
> 
>  On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>  j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
> 
> > If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls
> > going to this tower, both of which go to the same collision
> > domain) you can disable port 2 from the STP.
> >
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> > Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson
> > 
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a
> >> Netonix
> >> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix
> >> switch turns off the AF5X's port.
> >>
> >> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the
> >> AF 5X
> >> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!
> >> :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> >> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
> >> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop
> >> protection: re-enabling port 2
> 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Stuart Pierce]

99.86% sure it's paranoia, but I'd like to know what Mr. WILSON ( sorry I
was channeling my inner Dennis ) thinks the customer was setting up.

On Thu, January 26, 2017 12:53 am, RickG wrote:
> Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>
>> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
>>  Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running
>>> RSTP
>>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never
>>> went to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6
>>> for STP. Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think
>>> AirOS only
>>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>>
>>>
>>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that
>>> segment
>>>
>>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris Soiles
>>> Owner
>>> Rio Cities
>>> csoi...@riocities.net 505-966-6389
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange -
>>> these devices have been working together for a year.
>>>
>>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
 I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in
 the Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...


 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls
> going to this tower, both of which go to the same collision
> domain) you can disable port 2 from the STP.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson
> 
> wrote:
>
>
>> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>>
>>
>> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a
>> Netonix
>> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix
>> switch turns off the AF5X's port.
>>
>> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the
>> AF 5X
>> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!
>> :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to
>> port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 seconds Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop
>> protection: re-enabling port 2

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

This was caused by something the customer did with a static public IP that
we gave him.

He is on the far side of a Mikrotik router on a routed port.  This was
entirely our own doing...

On Jan 26, 2017 12:54 AM, "RickG"  wrote:

> Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
>> Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
>> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski"  wrote:
>>
>>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running RSTP
>>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never went
>>> to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6 for STP.
>>> Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think AirOS only
>>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles  wrote:
>>>
>>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>>
>>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that segment
>>>
>>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>>
>>> Chris Soiles
>>> Owner
>>> Rio Cities
>>> csoi...@riocities.net
>>> 505-966-6389
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson  wrote:
>>>
>>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these
>>> devices have been working together for a year.
>>>
>>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>>> protection.
>>>
>>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>>>
>>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
 Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...

 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going
> to this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can
> disable port 2 from the STP.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>>
>> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
>> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns 
>> off
>> the AF5X's port.
>>
>> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
>> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>>
>>
>> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[RickG]

Ya know, I've always suspected UBNT CPE leaks or am I just paranoid?

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:41 PM, James Wilson  wrote:

> Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
> Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
> something he did somehow caused a loop.
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski"  wrote:
>
>> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running RSTP
>> on the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never went
>> to blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6 for STP.
>> Weird part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think AirOS only
>> supports STP.   I might dig a bit further later on…
>>
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles  wrote:
>>
>> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>>
>> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that segment
>>
>> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>>
>> Chris Soiles
>> Owner
>> Rio Cities
>> csoi...@riocities.net
>> 505-966-6389
>>
>> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson  wrote:
>>
>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these
>> devices have been working together for a year.
>>
>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>> protection.
>>
>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>>
>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
>>> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
 this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
 port 2 from the STP.


 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
 Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373

 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
 wrote:

> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>
> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns 
> off
> the AF5X's port.
>
> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>
>
> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
> Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
> Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

Looks like a customer with a static public IP was setting up something.
Even though he is on a routed port of a switch (our CPEs are routed)
something he did somehow caused a loop.

On Jan 25, 2017 9:04 PM, "Eric Tykwinski"  wrote:

> I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running RSTP on
> the Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never went to
> blocked on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6 for STP.  Weird
> part was switch was still saying rstp, and I think AirOS only supports STP.
>   I might dig a bit further later on…
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles  wrote:
>
> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
>
> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that segment
>
> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>
> Chris Soiles
> Owner
> Rio Cities
> csoi...@riocities.net
> 505-966-6389
>
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson  wrote:
>
> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these
> devices have been working together for a year.
>
> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop protection.
>
> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>
> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
>> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
>>> this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
>>> port 2 from the STP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.

 Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
 switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off
 the AF5X's port.

 Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
 that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)


 Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
 Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)
 Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'
 Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
 Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Eric Tykwinski]

I just tested STP on my little home AirRouter running v6.  Running RSTP on the 
Cisco and bridged on the AirRouter with STP enabled, it never went to blocked 
on either port.  I think there might be a bug in v6 for STP.  Weird part was 
switch was still saying rstp, and I think AirOS only supports STP.   I might 
dig a bit further later on…


> On Jan 25, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Chris Soiles  wrote:
> 
> Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop
> 
> I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that segment
> 
> Sent from iPhone 6S Plus
>  
> Chris Soiles
> Owner
> Rio Cities
> csoi...@riocities.net 
> 505-966-6389 
> 
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson  > wrote:
> 
>> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these 
>> devices have been working together for a year.  
>> 
>> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop protection.
>> 
>> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>> 
>> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson > > wrote:
>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the 
>> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to this 
>> tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable port 2 
>> from the STP.
>> 
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson > > wrote:
>> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>> 
>> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix switch. 
>> The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off the 
>> AF5X's port.
>> 
>> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X that's 
>> connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>> 
>> 
>> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)
>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'
>> Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>> Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, 
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>> 
>> ___
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Scott Lambert]

By flat network, do you mean one layer 2 network spanning multiple towers?  If 
so, it could be anywhere on the far end of the link.  

Is there a Netonix at the far tower?  If so, I would have expected that switch 
to isolate a port over there, unless something just went off the rails in one 
of the radios. 

Did you power down the AF5 as part of the trouble shooting process?   And if 
so, did the problem continue? 

We are fully routed across backhauls.  I've seen similar messages on one AF 5 
or 5X link.  I didn't worry about it too much since it didn't affect the 
network enough to notice.  I just saw the messages in the log reports. 


On January 25, 2017 6:18:27 PM CST, James Wilson  wrote:
>We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange -
>these
>devices have been working together for a year.
>
>It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop
>protection.
>
>Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>
>Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>
>On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
>wrote:
>
>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
>> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going
>to
>>> this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can
>disable
>>> port 2 from the STP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.

 Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
 switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch
>turns off
 the AF5X's port.

 Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
 that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!   
>:)


 Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)

 Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to
>'Enabled'

 Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port
>2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Chris Soiles]

Could be some kind of crosstalk and thinking it's a loop

I usually turn off STP unless I know there is multipath in that segment

Sent from iPhone 6S Plus

Chris Soiles
Owner
Rio Cities
csoi...@riocities.net
505-966-6389

On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:18 PM, James Wilson  wrote:

We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these
devices have been working together for a year.

It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop protection.

Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???

Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson  wrote:

> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
>> this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
>> port 2 from the STP.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>>>
>>> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
>>> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off
>>> the AF5X's port.
>>>
>>> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
>>> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>
>>
>
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Josh Luthman]

STP is default I think...

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jan 25, 2017 7:18 PM, "James Wilson"  wrote:

> We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these
> devices have been working together for a year.
>
> It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop protection.
>
> Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???
>
> Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
>> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
>>> this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
>>> port 2 from the STP.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.

 Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
 switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off
 the AF5X's port.

 Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
 that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)


 Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)

 Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'

 Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2

 Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
 disabling port 2 for 180 seconds

 ___
 Ubnt_users mailing list
 Ubnt_users@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> Ubnt_users mailing list
> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>
>
___
Ubnt_users 

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

We didn't have STP enabled on any of the ports.  This is strange - these
devices have been working together for a year.

It's been stable for several minutes now that I turned off loop protection.

Don't see how I could get a loop in one device.   ???

Thank for coming to the rescue!   :)

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:15 PM, James Wilson  wrote:

> I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
> Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
>
>> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
>> this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
>> port 2 from the STP.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>>>
>>> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
>>> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off
>>> the AF5X's port.
>>>
>>> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
>>> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>>>
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>>
>>> Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>
>>
>
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[James Wilson]

I just did some Google searches and turned off Loop Protection in the
Devices/Configuration page.  So far ok...

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
> this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
> port 2 from the STP.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>>
>> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
>> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off
>> the AF5X's port.
>>
>> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X
>> that's connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>>
>>
>> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)
>>
>> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'
>>
>> Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>>
>> Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
>> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>>
>> ___
>> Ubnt_users mailing list
>> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Ubnt_users mailing list
> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>
>
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Jason Bailey via Ubnt_users]

No other links that are redundant that might cause this? 
Disable stp to start? 

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 7:09 PM, James Wilson  
wrote:
 

 I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix switch. The 
connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off the AF5X's port.
Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X that's 
connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!    :)

Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling 
port 2 for 180 secondsJan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 
18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 
for 180 secondsJan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin 
(172.19.3.6)Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 
'Enabled'Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2Jan 25 19:02:38 
Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2, disabling port 2 for 180 
seconds
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users


   ___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users

Re: [Ubnt_users] Help!

[Josh Luthman]

If you DEFINITELY don't have a bridge loop (like two backhauls going to
this tower, both of which go to the same collision domain) you can disable
port 2 from the STP.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, James Wilson  wrote:

> I have a very straightforward flat network, no OSPF, etc.
>
> Tonight I started losing connection and traced it back to a Netonix
> switch. The connection is up for a minute then the Netonix switch turns off
> the AF5X's port.
>
> Below is what it's log is saying.  I don't understand how the AF 5X that's
> connected to the port can cause a loop.  Help!   Thanks!:)
>
>
> Jan 25 17:39:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 17:42:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 17:43:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 17:46:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:03:04 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:06:05 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:06:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:09:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:15:17 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:18:18 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:22:19 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:25:21 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:25:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:28:40 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:34:13 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:37:14 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:37:22 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:40:24 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:41:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:44:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:45:37 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:48:39 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:49:33 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:52:35 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:53:39 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 18:56:41 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 18:58:36 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Configuration changed by admin (172.19.3.6)
>
> Jan 25 19:00:36 UI: Port 2 STP: changed from 'Disabled' to 'Enabled'
>
> Jan 25 19:01:38 Loop protection: re-enabling port 2
>
> Jan 25 19:02:38 Loop protection: detected loop from port 2 to port 2,
> disabling port 2 for 180 seconds
>
> ___
> Ubnt_users mailing list
> Ubnt_users@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users
>
>
___
Ubnt_users mailing list
Ubnt_users@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users