Yup, 3 /24's per box, so 24 /24's total in use. The snapshot below is from a box that is almost constantly running at 90% or higher capacity. All the other tc's follow suit, topping out about where this one does for ip pool utilization. For giggles we through a 4th /24 on one, with no change in the rate of '0.0.0.0' connects. Joshua Coombs GWI Networking On Monday 13 January 2003 05:09 pm, David Hamilton wrote:
Ahhhhh....
Or did you mean 3 /24's on EACH box?
Joshua Coombs extolled:
IP ADDRESS POOLS Name Address Size InUse State Route Unused Priority Status DYNAMIC 216.195.153.1/C 254 220 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE DYNAMIC1 216.195.154.1/C 254 188 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE DYNAMIC2 216.195.155.1/C 254 210 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE
This is pretty much the same across the board. The fact that there is an 'unused' column and it reports 0 for unused addys has me slightly concerned but I've never seen anything other than 0 there in the past, even in the lab with no calls on the equipment.
Joshua Coombs
On Monday 13 January 2003 04:43 pm, David Hamilton wrote:
What does list ip pools for all of the boxes say?
-- Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
Probibly the only way to figure it out is to hook up a laptop to the console port with miniterm (or any tereminal program that can record the screen info). Set the ARC to monitor radius sessions as they come/go and see if the TC is giving out all 0's or if its a client issue. ie if the radius monitor actually does show all 0's being assigned then you have a new bug. If the session assignes a valid IP then its a client (MS cough cough) issue. Either way I doubt that there is a fix (or at least a quick one). -- Paul Farber Farber Technology farber@admin.f-tech.net Ph 570-628-5303 Fax 570-628-5545 On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Joshua Coombs wrote:
Yup, 3 /24's per box, so 24 /24's total in use.
The snapshot below is from a box that is almost constantly running at 90% or higher capacity. All the other tc's follow suit, topping out about where this one does for ip pool utilization. For giggles we through a 4th /24 on one, with no change in the rate of '0.0.0.0' connects.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Monday 13 January 2003 05:09 pm, David Hamilton wrote:
Ahhhhh....
Or did you mean 3 /24's on EACH box?
Joshua Coombs extolled:
IP ADDRESS POOLS Name Address Size InUse State Route Unused Priority Status DYNAMIC 216.195.153.1/C 254 220 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE DYNAMIC1 216.195.154.1/C 254 188 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE DYNAMIC2 216.195.155.1/C 254 210 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE
This is pretty much the same across the board. The fact that there is an 'unused' column and it reports 0 for unused addys has me slightly concerned but I've never seen anything other than 0 there in the past, even in the lab with no calls on the equipment.
Joshua Coombs
On Monday 13 January 2003 04:43 pm, David Hamilton wrote:
What does list ip pools for all of the boxes say?
Hi Joshua, On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 05:44:34PM -0500, Joshua Coombs wrote:
Yup, 3 /24's per box, so 24 /24's total in use.
The snapshot below is from a box that is almost constantly running at 90% or higher capacity. All the other tc's follow suit, topping out about where this one does for ip pool utilization. For giggles we through a 4th /24 on one, with no change in the rate of '0.0.0.0' connects.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Monday 13 January 2003 05:09 pm, David Hamilton wrote:
Ahhhhh....
Or did you mean 3 /24's on EACH box?
Joshua Coombs extolled:
IP ADDRESS POOLS Name Address Size InUse State Route Unused Priority Status DYNAMIC 216.195.153.1/C 254 220 PUBLIC AGGREGATE 0 1 ACTIVE
Well, perhaps you first try to reduce it to "size 253" to omit the broadcast-address. That is, you have to reconfigure the pools with a smaller size. Hope it helps. Regards, Oliver. -- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking.
No, 254 is correct. .1 = 1st pool address .254 = 254th pool address NOT 1 + 254 = 255 There are 256 addresses including 0 256 - 1 (.0 network) - 1 ( .255 broadcast ) = 254 So, 254 is correct. Steve
-----Original Message-----
Hi Joshua,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 05:44:34PM -0500, Joshua Coombs wrote:
...
Joshua Coombs extolled:
IP ADDRESS POOLS Name Address Size InUse State Route Unused Priority Status DYNAMIC 216.195.153.1/C 254 220 PUBLIC
AGGREGATE 0
1 ACTIVE
Well, perhaps you first try to reduce it to "size 253" to omit the broadcast-address. That is, you have to reconfigure the pools with a smaller size.
Hope it helps.
Regards, Oliver.
-- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking.
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
Hi *, On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:46:17AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote:
No, 254 is correct.
Ouch, yes, it's too early in the morning, should NOT have sent out this email before having at least 2 coffee ;-) But perhaps one can do a set facILITY ip logLEVEL unUSUAL and either per console access or via telnet + show events get some hints from the output...?! Regards, Oliver. -- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking.
Tried turning up logging, and while I can see some customers failing PPP login, none of them are getting all 0's. The ones that are only generate proper session connected and session disconnected entries. Joshua Coombs GWI Networking On Tuesday 14 January 2003 04:45 am, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:46:17AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote:
No, 254 is correct.
Ouch, yes, it's too early in the morning, should NOT have sent out this email before having at least 2 coffee ;-)
But perhaps one can do a
set facILITY ip logLEVEL unUSUAL
and either per console access or via telnet +
show events
get some hints from the output...?!
Regards, Oliver.
Are these PRI or CT1's? If they are PRI do you have MPIP setup? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Coombs" <jcoombs@gwi.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com>; "Oliver Francke" <Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net> Cc: "David Hamilton" <dhamilton@voyager.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
Tried turning up logging, and while I can see some customers failing PPP login, none of them are getting all 0's. The ones that are only generate proper session connected and session disconnected entries.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 04:45 am, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:46:17AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote:
No, 254 is correct.
Ouch, yes, it's too early in the morning, should NOT have sent out this email before having at least 2 coffee ;-)
But perhaps one can do a
set facILITY ip logLEVEL unUSUAL
and either per console access or via telnet +
show events
get some hints from the output...?!
Regards, Oliver.
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
PRI, 7 per chassis, DS3 ingress. 8 chassis total, 1 arc per chassis, all doing mpip with one chassis as the primary mpip server, one as the secondary. As far as I can tell mpip is working correctly. We do see alot of multilink customers getting all 0's, when they do that connection only stays up for about 30 seconds then drops. Their first connection stops routing once the second leg connects. As far as normal behavior, if both links hit one chassis, they both show up with the same ip in the logs. Can't produce logs off the top of my head of a multilink connection across chassis at the moment. This is affecting some regular, single connection analog dialup customers as well. Joshua Coombs GWI Networking On Tuesday 14 January 2003 01:58 pm, Todd Bertolozzi wrote:
Are these PRI or CT1's? If they are PRI do you have MPIP setup?
Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Coombs" <jcoombs@gwi.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com>; "Oliver Francke" <Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net> Cc: "David Hamilton" <dhamilton@voyager.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
Tried turning up logging, and while I can see some customers failing PPP login, none of them are getting all 0's. The ones that are only generate proper session connected and session disconnected entries.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 04:45 am, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:46:17AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote:
No, 254 is correct.
Ouch, yes, it's too early in the morning, should NOT have sent out this email before having at least 2 coffee ;-)
But perhaps one can do a
set facILITY ip logLEVEL unUSUAL
and either per console access or via telnet +
show events
get some hints from the output...?!
Regards, Oliver.
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
Doesn't totally apply but I found in commworks a solution for a Netserver sporadically handing out 0.0.0.0 instead of a valid address from the dialup pools: **** Connect either via console or telnet and do: set s0 login save all **** Maybe that will spark a solution from someone. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Coombs" <jcoombs@gwi.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
PRI, 7 per chassis, DS3 ingress. 8 chassis total, 1 arc per chassis, all doing mpip with one chassis as the primary mpip server, one as the secondary. As far as I can tell mpip is working correctly.
We do see alot of multilink customers getting all 0's, when they do that connection only stays up for about 30 seconds then drops. Their first connection stops routing once the second leg connects.
As far as normal behavior, if both links hit one chassis, they both show up with the same ip in the logs. Can't produce logs off the top of my head of a multilink connection across chassis at the moment.
This is affecting some regular, single connection analog dialup customers as well.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 01:58 pm, Todd Bertolozzi wrote:
Are these PRI or CT1's? If they are PRI do you have MPIP setup?
Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Coombs" <jcoombs@gwi.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com>; "Oliver Francke" <Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net> Cc: "David Hamilton" <dhamilton@voyager.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
Tried turning up logging, and while I can see some customers failing PPP login, none of them are getting all 0's. The ones that are only generate proper session connected and session disconnected entries.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 04:45 am, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:46:17AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote:
No, 254 is correct.
Ouch, yes, it's too early in the morning, should NOT have sent out this email before having at least 2 coffee ;-)
But perhaps one can do a
set facILITY ip logLEVEL unUSUAL
and either per console access or via telnet +
show events
get some hints from the output...?!
Regards, Oliver.
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
A side note...if users dial in using slip instead of ppp...they will appear to connect and get assigned 0.0.0.0. Have you confirmed this isn't something on the users end? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Bertolozzi" <berto@voyager.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
Doesn't totally apply but I found in commworks a solution for a Netserver sporadically handing out 0.0.0.0 instead of a valid address from the dialup pools:
**** Connect either via console or telnet and do: set s0 login save all ****
Maybe that will spark a solution from someone.
Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Coombs" <jcoombs@gwi.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
PRI, 7 per chassis, DS3 ingress. 8 chassis total, 1 arc per chassis, all doing mpip with one chassis as the primary mpip server, one as the secondary. As far as I can tell mpip is working correctly.
We do see alot of multilink customers getting all 0's, when they do that connection only stays up for about 30 seconds then drops. Their first connection stops routing once the second leg connects.
As far as normal behavior, if both links hit one chassis, they both show up with the same ip in the logs. Can't produce logs off the top of my head of a multilink connection across chassis at the moment.
This is affecting some regular, single connection analog dialup customers as well.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 01:58 pm, Todd Bertolozzi wrote:
Are these PRI or CT1's? If they are PRI do you have MPIP setup?
Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Coombs" <jcoombs@gwi.net> To: <usr-tc@mailman.xmission.com>; "Oliver Francke" <Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net> Cc: "David Hamilton" <dhamilton@voyager.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [USR-TC] All 0's hell
Tried turning up logging, and while I can see some customers failing PPP login, none of them are getting all 0's. The ones that are only generate proper session connected and session disconnected entries.
Joshua Coombs GWI Networking
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 04:45 am, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi *,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:46:17AM -0800, Steve Brown wrote:
No, 254 is correct.
Ouch, yes, it's too early in the morning, should NOT have sent out this email before having at least 2 coffee ;-)
But perhaps one can do a
set facILITY ip logLEVEL unUSUAL
and either per console access or via telnet +
show events
get some hints from the output...?!
Regards, Oliver.
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
_______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc
Hi, On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:50:06PM -0500, Todd Bertolozzi wrote:
A side note...if users dial in using slip instead of ppp...they will appear to connect and get assigned 0.0.0.0.
Have you confirmed this isn't something on the users end?
Todd
and another side note, what does show ip settings in the line: --- IP local address for unnumbered links: <w.x.y.z> --- say? I normally configure, for some historic grown reason the ip address of the "default gateway" per set ip unnUMBERED_LINK locAL_ADDRESS <ip-address of the gateway> If not, do not bother me, it was only a side note :-) Oliver. -- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking.
That happens to be set 0.0.0.0 What do I risk in setting that to the ip of the gateway for the TC ARC network? Joshua Coombs GWI Networking On Tuesday 14 January 2003 03:59 pm, Oliver Francke wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:50:06PM -0500, Todd Bertolozzi wrote:
A side note...if users dial in using slip instead of ppp...they will appear to connect and get assigned 0.0.0.0.
Have you confirmed this isn't something on the users end?
Todd
and another side note, what does show ip settings
in the line:
--- IP local address for unnumbered links: <w.x.y.z> ---
say? I normally configure, for some historic grown reason the ip address of the "default gateway" per
set ip unnUMBERED_LINK locAL_ADDRESS <ip-address of the gateway>
If not, do not bother me, it was only a side note :-)
Oliver.
Well, On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:26:37PM -0500, Joshua Coombs wrote:
That happens to be set 0.0.0.0
What do I risk in setting that to the ip of the gateway for the TC ARC network?
... should do no harm. I think it's important for some first LCP negotiation. But I'm not a RFC guru. It's more to deal with a lack of some weird clients, failing with no avail unnumbered address. Afterwards it took the "right" one. Regards, Oliver. -- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:41:03PM +0100, Oliver Francke wrote:
Well,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:26:37PM -0500, Joshua Coombs wrote:
That happens to be set 0.0.0.0
What do I risk in setting that to the ip of the gateway for the TC ARC network?
... should do no harm. I think it's important for some first LCP
more of the IPCP-part... ;-)
negotiation. But I'm not a RFC guru. It's more to deal with a lack of
Oliver. -- Oliver.Francke@mediaWays.net fon. +49-5246-80-1389 mob. +49-171-5597734 I used to have a sig, but I've stopped smoking.
Conviently enough, doing ppp monitors, ipcp is where neogotiation breaks... I'll try this and report back. Joshua Coombs GWI Networking On Tuesday 14 January 2003 04:48 pm, Oliver Francke wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:41:03PM +0100, Oliver Francke wrote:
Well,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:26:37PM -0500, Joshua Coombs wrote:
That happens to be set 0.0.0.0
What do I risk in setting that to the ip of the gateway for the TC ARC network?
... should do no harm. I think it's important for some first LCP
more of the IPCP-part... ;-)
negotiation. But I'm not a RFC guru. It's more to deal with a lack of
Oliver.
Quick question, I flashed a few of my DSP cards from V.90 to 3.5.105 V.92 and I really don't see a difference in V.90 to V.92 How can I verify that they are now V.92 and is that all that needs to be done is flash them or is their perhaps some settings that need to be changed. Thanks Bill
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 02:53 pm, List wrote:
Quick question, I flashed a few of my DSP cards from V.90 to 3.5.105 V.92 and I really don't see a difference in V.90 to V.92 How can I verify that they are now V.92 and is that all that needs to be done is flash them or is their perhaps some settings that need to be changed. There are several settings to control MOH. Change those and make sure v44 is enabled. The best way is to try to use an MOH app and see if your programmed allowed hold time appears. -- Lewis Bergman Texas Communications 4309 Maple St. Abilene, TX 79602-8044 915-695-6962 ext 115
Also Sprach Joshua Coombs
Tried turning up logging, and while I can see some customers failing PPP login, none of them are getting all 0's. The ones that are only generate proper session connected and session disconnected entries.
Haven't followed this all that closely, so bear with me if I'm totally off base here, but I'm wondering if your experiences with customers being "assigned" 0.0.0.0 correlates in any way with any particular usage pattern of Multi-Link PPP. My gut says it might be related to when a second channel comes up and tries to bundle cross-chassis? I don't have anything hard and fast that would make me say that...but its a gut instinct, and I seem to have some sort of vague rememberance of running into something similar that was related along these lines. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
participants (8)
-
Jeff McAdams -
Joshua Coombs -
Lewis Bergman -
List -
Oliver Francke -
Paul Farber -
Steve Brown -
Todd Bertolozzi