Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

We have a switch stack with 4 switches (SGE2000 and SGE2000P) and we are seeing the log messages below filling up the logs. Can one of the Linksys engineers please provide a definition of the %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW log message?

We have not seen this message on other SGE switch stacks with very similar configurations.

Log Index Log Time Severity Description   2147483334  19-Apr-2010 14:00:34    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.10.37, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483336  19-Apr-2010 13:59:55    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.5.80, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483337  19-Apr-2010 13:59:25    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.11.36, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483338  19-Apr-2010 13:58:56    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.12.108, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483339  19-Apr-2010 13:58:20    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.12.52, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483342  19-Apr-2010 13:57:49    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.12.64, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483343  19-Apr-2010 13:57:19    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.3.18, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483344  19-Apr-2010 13:56:49    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.156.33, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483345  19-Apr-2010 13:56:04    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.10.30, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483347  19-Apr-2010 13:55:34    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.10.113, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483348  19-Apr-2010 13:55:04    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.12.250, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199          2147483349  19-Apr-2010 13:54:34    Warning  %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW: IP SFFT RED YELLOW: ip caused the problem:  fft_num - 1, mrid - 1, ip - 192.168.10.18, mask - 255.255.255.255, entry_num - 199

Thank you.

8 REPLIES
Bronze

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Hello,

Can you please open a case for this one?  This may require some assistance from our business unit.

To find the best phone number for your location, click on the home page and then the link for the support numbers:

https://www.myciscocommunity.com/community/smallbizsupport

HTH,

Andrew Lissitz

New Member

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Hi Andrew,

I have already opened a case for this, but apart from our initial contact from your support staff, all my follow up emails have been ignored. No case number was given either. Our account manager advised posting it here.

Cheers,

Steve

New Member

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Hi Steve,

my customer has exactly the same error messages. Do you have news concerning these messages?

Markus

Bronze

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Hello,

I do not recall getting an answer for the specific logs ... just a suggestion to call support and get a RMA.  Your case may be different though ...

Have you all tried support?

New Member

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Hi Markus,

No, unfortunately the cause of this was never determined. It hasn't happened again since.

It's quite surprising that no one at Cisco could give us a definition for their own syslog messages.

Cheers,

Steve

Bronze

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Understood.

Just curious, did you get a RMA or anything?

If you like, you can call back in and ask for an escalation.  HTH,


Andrew

New Member

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Hi Andrew,

An RMA was offered back when we originally logged the call, but we weren't interested in wasting the time required to replace the hardware if Cisco couldn't tell us that it was actually a hardware fault. (this was a stack, not an individual switch). And so far the problem hasn't occurred again which suggests we made the right choice.

The underlying issue is that no one at Cisco could give us a definition of the above log message. If we knew what it meant, we (and Cisco) would be in a better position to determine whether replacing the hardware would actually fix any problem or whether it is a software fault.

Regards,

Steve

Gold

Re: Definition of log entry: %IPFFT-W-SFFTREDYELLOW:

Steve,

I have located some information about the error you saw in the switch.

This message is not an error, it is just an informational message related to directly connected hosts in the ARP table. The switch keeps a list of directly connected hosts that is constantly updating. When the switch reaches more than 200 directly connected hosts in the ARP table, this kind of message starts to appear. At this point the switch will clear part of the ARP table in order to keep at most 180 used addresses.

As previously mentioned, this is not causing any problems on the switch. The "ip caused the problem" part is bad phrasing and only means that the table reached the maximum number of addresses. The switch should function fine.

2286
Views
0
Helpful
8
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content