SRW208P RSTP Root Negotiation Issue - switches shipping after 4/19/10?

Unanswered Question
May 7th, 2010
User Badges:

Hi all,


We have configured hundreds of SRW208P switches, with the below hardware and software versions, using a canned configuration we developed long ago.  Three weeks ago we placed an order for 4 of them (all same versions as below) and found when we loaded our canned configuration, they all dropped off the air.  After further investigation, we pinpointed the issue to Rapid Spanning Tree mode settings.  At the instant we set the SRW208P's bridge priority to the same priority as the connecting switch (SRW2048G4P--same switch and RSTP priority we have used for all prior configuration) the SRW208P drops off the network.  Console continues to work fine.


Boot Version:          1.0.1 (Date:  06-Jun-2006, Time:  17:23:21)        

Software Version:      1.0.4 (Date:  06-Sep-2007, Time:  09:11:40)        

Hardware Version:      00.03.00                                            


Has anybody else had something like this happen recently?  We worked around the issue by creating a new canned configuration with SRW208P RSTP root priority to something different from the SRW248G4P, but, I'm wondering if this is a faulty chip series or something like that.


Regards,

lamorrell



  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
alissitz Mon, 05/10/2010 - 21:29
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

Hello,


If just changing the priority fixed your problem, then this does not sound like a faulty chip or anything.


I do not know of any changes to the priorities ... however on some switch models we are now making RSTP the default mode instead of traditional STP.


Are you also upgrading the code and if you think it would be helpful, please feel free to paste your configs here.


Sorry I do not have more ... and I HTH,


Andrew Lissitz

leaannesipstorm Tue, 05/11/2010 - 14:54
User Badges:

Thank you Andrew for the response. 


We haven't upgraded the software on the SRW208P switches as they have been shipping with the latest firmware, 1.0.4.  As a precaution, I grabbed the current image off Cisco and uploaded it to the switch.  The switch shows the same version and create date as indicated in my original post, so this confirms the Software version we are running is the latest code. 


We are running the following versions on the SRW248G4P switch.   

Boot Version:         1.0.1

Software Version:     1.0.2

Loader Version:       1.0.1

Hardware Version:     R01

I know there's a newer 1.3.1.0 software version out there.  Since the problem seems to follow the "new" SRW208P switches I am dubious about a 248G4P upgrade.  We will probably do the upgrade eventually.


I'm attaching the config files for the SRW208P and SRW248G4P switches.  If you want to load these, the 48-port config requires that you enter the switch's base mac in two places near the top of the text file (replace "put-MAC-here" with hardware MAC address of target switch using xx-xx-xx-xx-xx format).  The RSTP priority in this config has been modified to 12288, which works fine with the 208P default STP settings. 


The 208P configuration is the factory default with these modifications: IP address, mask, and gateway, and the Spanning Tree type and priority are RSTP 16384. 


If you want to see the failure, you will need to set the priority on both switches to the same value, so, for example, 16384.  I did an experiment this morning where I set them both to 16384, then changed the 248G4P RSTP priority to 12288.  I then was able to access the 208P Web portal log--there was only one entry regarding spanning tree: 

3   2147483643   01-Jan-2000 01:55:23    Warning   %STP-W-PORTSTATUS: g2: STP status Forwarding


These are the log messages from the 248G4P (fa3 on the 248G4P switch connects to g2 on the 208p):

-------------------------

11:8:18 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:Unit 1, Port  3 link-up notification.

-------------------------

11:7:21 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:Unit 1, Port  3 link-down notification.

-------------------------

10:54:58 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:Unit 1, Port  3 link-up notification.

-------------------------

10:54:1 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:Unit 1, Port  3 link-down notification.

-------------------------

10:36:55 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:STA topology change notification.

-------------------------

10:36:55 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:Unit 1, Port  3 link-up notification.

-------------------------

10:30:45 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:Unit 1, Port  3 link-down notification.

-------------------------

10:1:13 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:STA topology change notification.

-------------------------

10:0:37 2010-5-11

Log Messages:

Level :6, Module:5, functions:1, error number:1

Information:STA topology change notification.


FYI, to cover all bases, we have opened an RMA on 3 of the switches exhibiting this behavior.  I will update this post when we test the replacements. 


Best regards and thanks,

Lea Anne Morrell

leaannesipstorm Mon, 05/17/2010 - 09:49
User Badges:

Update here.  We received the RMA replacement switches and retested for this issue.  Testing with various settings to try to make it fail, we could not replicate the issue. The problem appears to be isolated to a batch of switches as bizzare as it may seem.  I will update this post if we run into more.  Thanks for the input Andrew. 


Regards,

Lea Anne Morrell

alissitz Mon, 05/17/2010 - 10:04
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

Congrats on working through this.  Not sure I did much ... ;-)


Good work!


Andrew