Send netdisco-users mailing list submissions to
netdisco-users@lists.sourceforge.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netdisco-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
netdisco-users-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
netdisco-users-ow...@lists.sourceforge.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of netdisco-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Nexus topology information not as expected (Sebastian R?sch)
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
I´m wondering about the behavior in relation with cisco nexus-to-nexus port
channels. Netdisco normally recognizes the relation between physical ports in a
portchannel and the virtual portchannel interface. It marks both, the physical
and virtual ports as uplinkports. On this ports no node will be shown (as
expected)
Example (cisco 2960x+3750):
[cid:image001.png@01D13C14.F563B5A0]
On a nexus, the whole thing looks a little different. Ok, in the first column
it looks like netdisco discovers correctly, but the ports are shown as
"possible uplinks". I already tried to play with the manual topology (as shown
on the picture), but that didn´t help. The ports I´ve got stuck with, are the
interconnection ports, that are used to build the data-interconnection between
the nexus devices. They are needed to build high redundancy. Normally this
ports are not interesting for me, but there is no way to not macsuck certain
ports I think?! On the portchannel interface I can see mac addresses from the
adjacent cisco nexus device for all available L3 interfaces.
Nexus:
[cid:image003.jpg@01D13C1C.682AEED0]
Maybe, it´s cdp related and the information gathered are not unique or as
expected?! For example an detailed cdp output shows two different ip addresses.
The first one is also an L3 address from the remote system, but it isn´t the
correct management address, the second is the correct address. It seems to be,
that netdisco uses this first address, but there is no device with that address
and so, the topology information is not consistent... Does somebody else has a
similar problem / or any ideas for fixing this?
[cid:image007.jpg@01D13C1C.682AEED0]
Best Regards
Sebastian
--- End Message ---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Netdisco mailing list - Digest Mode
netdisco-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/netdisco-users
