New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Problem with port numbering on Avaya 49xx #222

Closed
netdisco-automation opened this Issue Apr 22, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@netdisco-automation

netdisco-automation commented Apr 22, 2017

From @erics69 on January 20, 2017 8:28

The discover of new Avaya ERS49xx's stacks results in wrong port numbering: unit 1 has 1.x port number format, but unit #2 has 3.x, unit #3 has 5.x, and so on.

Your Environment

  • Netdisco version used: 2.034002
  • SNMP::Info version used: 3.34
  • Avaya ERS4950GTS-PWR+: fw 7.2.0.5, sw 7.2.0.213

Copied from original issue: netdisco/netdisco#292

@netdisco-automation

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@netdisco-automation

netdisco-automation Apr 22, 2017

From @jl84 on April 21, 2017 10:6

Hi,

This is probably due to Avaya releasing the ERS 59100GTS switch model with 100 ports so the port indexing gets wierd but yeah I have the same issue which is quite annoying and I already made a config mistake because of it :)

/Johan

netdisco-automation commented Apr 22, 2017

From @jl84 on April 21, 2017 10:6

Hi,

This is probably due to Avaya releasing the ERS 59100GTS switch model with 100 ports so the port indexing gets wierd but yeah I have the same issue which is quite annoying and I already made a config mistake because of it :)

/Johan

@zoeloe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zoeloe

zoeloe Jan 16, 2018

FYI:
Suggested intermediate fix:
It seems that a 4950 switch has a index_factor of 128.
It looks that modifying SNMP::Info::Layer2::Baystack.pm

the diff is e.g.:

----------------
232c232
<         if ( ( $model =~ /(5[56]\d\d)|VSP|(4950)/ )
---
>         if ( ( $model =~ /(5[56]\d\d)|VSP/ )
----------------

does the trick.
It would be nice if a generic catch-all fix would be available. A similar regex would catch
other devices with an index_factor of 128.
You could try: /(5[56]\d\d)|VSP|(59100)/
Not tested.

zoeloe commented Jan 16, 2018

FYI:
Suggested intermediate fix:
It seems that a 4950 switch has a index_factor of 128.
It looks that modifying SNMP::Info::Layer2::Baystack.pm

the diff is e.g.:

----------------
232c232
<         if ( ( $model =~ /(5[56]\d\d)|VSP|(4950)/ )
---
>         if ( ( $model =~ /(5[56]\d\d)|VSP/ )
----------------

does the trick.
It would be nice if a generic catch-all fix would be available. A similar regex would catch
other devices with an index_factor of 128.
You could try: /(5[56]\d\d)|VSP|(59100)/
Not tested.

@ollyg ollyg closed this in 4afbd37 Feb 12, 2018

@ollyg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ollyg

ollyg Feb 12, 2018

Member

fixed in 4afbd37, many thanks!

Member

ollyg commented Feb 12, 2018

fixed in 4afbd37, many thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment