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
con
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,
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
connecti
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 doma
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,
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.
>
>
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 enable
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 t
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
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. Runni
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 ca
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
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 P
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 wha
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 t
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
>
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.
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
blem at all.
Thanks for listening! :)
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Kees H 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: [
’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 sta
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
oute 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 wrote:
>
>> I’d put my money on a false positive.
>> (a negative in this case)
>> *From
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 littl
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
Hello,
We moved one of our voip customers from M5 over to AC Gen2 on the Same
tower location. Now the customer complains that when they have a long call
they can get garbled. The Tower as AC Gen2 running in Mixed mode and
customer did not have the same issue running on the M5 Power Bridge but no
25 matches
Mail list logo
