Extreme Networks BD 6808 errors -- help to interpret.

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

I've recently stumbled over an error in the logs of one of my Black Diamond
6808's. Due to redundant MSMs this hasn't had any practical effect yet, but
I have just initiated a ticket on the matter.

Parallell to that I thought I'd take the oportunity to ask if anyone here
has any more insight on what this means, what is happening and possibly
what could cause it. Is it simply a matter of a broken MSM, or what could
trigger something like this?

Replies onlist or offlist appreciated, whatever you prefer.

Thank you in advance,

SYST: The signature of NMC0 is disappered. Reset the NMC10
SYST: Removed MSM-B base module
SYST: slave MSM communications pipe is closed
SYST: MSM-B is inserted.
SYST: Start initializing MSM-B base module
SYST: MSM-B SN = 701021-17 0235F-70778
SYST: slave MSM communications pipe is open
SYST: Done initializing MSM-B base module
SYST: MSM-B HW_AN=0 SW_AN=0 DECODE=0 INTSTAT=0 ANRCVCFG=0 CTRL=10000000
SYST: slot 3 HW_AN=a1 SW_AN=13 DECODE=1b INTSTAT=bf8 ANRCVCFG=41a0 CTRL=ff3ffc00
SYST: MSM-B=[701021-17 0235F-70778 ]
SYST: slot 3=[701026-15 0315F-80358 ]
SYST: backplane=[701000-08 0230h00123 ]
SYST: [2] Connection between MSM-B mother board port 2 and I/O module 3 port 1 broke, fix immediately
SYST: MSM-B HW_AN=0 SW_AN=0 DECODE=0 INTSTAT=0 ANRCVCFG=0 CTRL=10000000
SYST: slot 4 HW_AN=a1 SW_AN=13 DECODE=84 INTSTAT=bf8 ANRCVCFG=41a0 CTRL=ff3ffc00
SYST: MSM-B=[701021-17 0235F-70778 ]
SYST: slot 4=[701024-21 0238F-70372 ]
SYST: backplane=[701000-08 0230h00123 ]
SYST: [2] Connection between MSM-B mother board port 3 and I/O module 4 port 1 broke, fix immediately
SYST: MSM-B HW_AN=0 SW_AN=0 DECODE=0 INTSTAT=0 ANRCVCFG=0 CTRL=10000000
SYST: slot 6 HW_AN=a1 SW_AN=13 DECODE=1b INTSTAT=bf8 ANRCVCFG=41a0 CTRL=ff3ffc00
SYST: MSM-B=[701021-17 0235F-70778 ]
SYST: slot 6=[701026-15 0315F-80383 ]
SYST: backplane=[701000-08 0230h00123 ]
SYST: [2] Connection between MSM-B mother board port 5 and I/O module 6 port 1 broke, fix immediately
KERN: Secondary Mgmt port initialized
KERN: Secondary Mgmt port enabled
SYST: The signature of NMC0 is disappered. Reset the NMC10
SYST: Removed MSM-B base module
SYST: slave MSM communications pipe is closed
SYST: MSM-B is inserted.
SYST: Start initializing MSM-B base module
SYST: MSM-B SN = 701021-17 0235F-70778
SYST: slave MSM communications pipe is open
SYST: Done initializing MSM-B base module
KERN: Secondary Mgmt port initialized
KERN: Secondary Mgmt port enabled
SYST: The signature of NMC0 is disappered. Reset the NMC10
SYST: Removed MSM-B base module
SYST: slave MSM communications pipe is closed
SYST: MSM-B is inserted.
SYST: Start initializing MSM-B base module
SYST: MSM-B SN = 701021-17 0235F-70778
SYST: slave MSM communications pipe is open
SYST: Done initializing MSM-B base module
KERN: Secondary Mgmt port initialized
KERN: Secondary Mgmt port enabled

2

Mattias Ahnberg wrote:

I've recently stumbled over an error in the logs of one of my Black Diamond
6808's. Due to redundant MSMs this hasn't had any practical effect yet, but
I have just initiated a ticket on the matter.

I just got word from a few members that my post was seriously off topic. I
did try to study the information at http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html before
I posted just to be certain, and my view is that I couldn't find anything
that outruled a posting like my own.

I have probably missed something, perhaps unwritten policy, and for that I
am sorry. I will not repeat my mistake.

3

(followups set)

Mattias Ahnberg wrote:

I've recently stumbled over an error in the logs of one of my Black Diamond
6808's. Due to redundant MSMs this hasn't had any practical effect yet, but
I have just initiated a ticket on the matter.

I just got word from a few members that my post was seriously off topic. I
did try to study the information at http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html before
I posted just to be certain, and my view is that I couldn't find anything
that outruled a posting like my own.

It's the AUP that determines what's on-topic for the list, not the FAQ. Your message was perfectly fine for the NANOG list according to the AUP.

However, in the interests of getting you a good answer to your question, you might find the following list more useful than this one:

   https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/extreme-nsp

This advice is also in the FAQ you quoted (well, kind of: see <http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html#routerconfig>).

I have probably missed something, perhaps unwritten policy, and for that I
am sorry. I will not repeat my mistake.

Getting flamed by other subscribers is all part of life in the big city :slight_smile:

Joe

4

I have probably missed something, perhaps unwritten policy, and for that

I

am sorry. I will not repeat my mistake.

Please DO CONTINUE to discuss this on the list.
Ignore all those messages of complaint. The only
complaints that matter are those of the Mailing
List Administrators whose names are listed here:
http://www.nanog.org/listadmins.html

The people who were complaining to you are not
serious about network operations. They just want
to keep it as a private club where only people
who know the secret handshake can apply.

However, in the 21st century, stable and reliable
network operations are vital to the global economy.
This means that we MUST openly discuss issues that
arise in order to jointly solve the problems and
to educate all parties involved, vendors, researchers
and operators.

It's OK to step on some toes and offend a few people.
This is a rough and tumble business where you need
to have a thick skin to survive. Perhaps the problem
is that the COMPLAINANTS do not have a thick enough
skin.

--Michael Dillon