2960 and 3560 uplink failed after power failure

Answered Question
Jul 26th, 2007
User Badges:

***********************************

Cisco IOS Software, C2960 Software (C2960-LANBASE-M), Version 12.2(25)SEE2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by Cisco Systems, Inc.

Compiled Fri 28-Jul-06 04:33 by yenanh

Image text-base: 0x00003000, data-base: 0x00AA2F34


ROM: Bootstrap program is C2960 boot loader

BOOTLDR: C2960 Boot Loader (C2960-HBOOT-M) Version 12.2(25r)SEE1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)


W0201-imislgca1 uptime is 1 day, 22 hours, 37 minutes

System returned to ROM by power-on

System image file is "flash:c2960-lanbase-mz.122-25.SEE2/c2960-lanbase-mz.122-25.SEE2.bin"


cisco WS-C2960-48TT-L (PowerPC405) processor (revision B0) with 61440K/4088K bytes of memory.

Processor board ID FOC1044X3DG

Last reset from power-on

2 Virtual Ethernet interfaces

48 FastEthernet interfaces

2 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces

The password-recovery mechanism is enabled.

***********************************

Cisco IOS Software, C3560 Software (C3560-IPBASE-M), Version 12.2(25)SEE2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

Copyright (c) 1986-2006 by Cisco Systems, Inc.

Compiled Fri 28-Jul-06 07:19 by yenanh

Image text-base: 0x00003000, data-base: 0x00EB0F14


ROM: Bootstrap program is C3560 boot loader

BOOTLDR: C3560 Boot Loader (C3560-HBOOT-M) Version 12.2(25r)SEC, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc4)


W0200-imislgbd2 uptime is 18 hours, 46 minutes

System returned to ROM by power-on

System image file is "flash:c3560-ipbase-mz.122-25.SEE2/c3560-ipbase-mz.122-25.SEE2.bin"


cisco WS-C3560-24TS (PowerPC405) processor (revision D0) with 118784K/12280K bytes of memory.

Processor board ID CAT1043NL0V

Last reset from power-on

2 Virtual Ethernet interfaces

24 FastEthernet interfaces

2 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces

The password-recovery mechanism is enabled.

***********************************


We have this two equipments (show above) connected in this manner


3560 (fa0/4) <---> (Gi0/2) 2960


1) When we power up the 2960 with the UTP Cable connected, the uplink will not go up, we need to replug the cable then the link will come up.


2) The rebooting the 3560 even unpluggin the UTP does not resolve the problem.


Theres no log indicating why the interface was down

Please help... Thank you


Correct Answer by manmeetmarwah about 9 years 10 months ago

Hi,


There might be a negotiation mismatch happening between the switches as one switch is having a fast ethernet port whereas the other switch is having a gigabit ethernet port.


You can try putting both the ports forcefully to 100 Mbps full duplex and then can verify their behaviour.


The commands for the above are:


3560 switch:


conf t

interface fa0/4

speed 100

duplex full


2960 switch:


conf t

interface Gi0/2

speed 100

duplex full


Manmeet


Pls rate.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
Loading.
Amit Singh Fri, 07/27/2007 - 01:50
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Could you please paste the interface config for both the ports.


What happens when you reboot the 3560. Do you see the same behaviour on 2960 or 3560 side.


-amit singh

rgsantos Fri, 07/27/2007 - 23:22
User Badges:

3560

!

interface FastEthernet0/4

switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q

switchport mode trunk

!

2960

!

interface GigabitEthernet0/2

switchport mode trunk

!

its on the 2960 side only, there are 2 3560, the interconnect are working fine on 3560 when powered up


Correct Answer
manmeetmarwah Fri, 07/27/2007 - 02:04
User Badges:

Hi,


There might be a negotiation mismatch happening between the switches as one switch is having a fast ethernet port whereas the other switch is having a gigabit ethernet port.


You can try putting both the ports forcefully to 100 Mbps full duplex and then can verify their behaviour.


The commands for the above are:


3560 switch:


conf t

interface fa0/4

speed 100

duplex full


2960 switch:


conf t

interface Gi0/2

speed 100

duplex full


Manmeet


Pls rate.

EPHRAIM MANI Sat, 07/28/2007 - 00:52
User Badges:
  • Bronze, 100 points or more

rqsantos, would like to know whether this is a new setup or this connectivity was working properly earlier.


Thanks EM

rgsantos Sun, 07/29/2007 - 16:37
User Badges:

Hi Tee,


Were not able to investigate this anymore. It worked when we force to 100/full


Thank you

Actions

This Discussion