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

Avaya ERS4900 series switch port numbering error. #238

Closed
jl84 opened this Issue Dec 6, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jl84

jl84 commented Dec 6, 2017

Expected Behavior

Adding a new ERS4900 switch should all every every device in the ports-list from switch 1 to 8

Current Behavior

Adding a ERS4900 switch causes Netdisco to skip devices 5-8 and instead add device 1-4 with switch numbering 1,3,5,7. Under Modules all 8 devices are visible but not in the ports-list.

Possible Solution

When Avaya introduced the ERS4900 and 5900 series (Same firmware) they added a 59100 model with 100 ports, this probably has something to do with devices not being added correctly and Netdisco considering device 2 as 3, 3 as 5 and so on.

Context

The second half of the switches in the stack are not visible in the ports-list and the port numbering error makes device discovery problematic and can cause config errors.

Your Environment

Software Version
App::Netdisco 2.36.11 (Had same issue in a few previous versions)
SNMP::Info 3.37
DB Schema 44
PostgreSQL 8.4.20
Perl 5.10.1

image

image

@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.

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.

@jl84 jl84 closed this Jan 18, 2018

@jl84

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jl84

jl84 Jan 18, 2018

I owe you a beer, this worked perfectly, thank you!

jl84 commented Jan 18, 2018

I owe you a beer, this worked perfectly, thank you!

@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!

@ollyg ollyg closed this Feb 12, 2018

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