Title: | FDDI - The Next Generation |
Moderator: | NETCAD::STEFANI |
Created: | Thu Apr 27 1989 |
Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 2259 |
Total number of notes: | 8590 |
Attached is a message from a customer with an unexplained FDDI behavior. A picture of this LAN is provided as well as the DECelms map. Can anyone shed light on this behavior? Dave, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- .-----------------------------SMF------------------------------. | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | `--| DRC_DC500 |--| JHW_DC500 |--| SHB_DC500 |--|SHB_DC500_2|--' +-----+-----+ +-----+-----+ +-----------+ +-----------+ | / \ +-----+-----+ / \ | DRC_DB500 | / \ +-----------+ / \ / \ +-----------+ +-----------+ | OCS_DC500 | | CSB_DB500 | +-----+-----+ +-----------+ | +-----+-----+ | OCS_DB500 | +-----------+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legend: A) DRC, JHW, SHB, OCS & CSB are building codes B) xxx_DC500 is DECconcentrator 500 xxx_DB500 is DECbridge 500 C) All links are multimode except the long line from DRC to SHB which is single mode fiber ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Danny Sheaffer - (512) 463-3324" 10-DEC-1991 11:50:32.10 To: buddie::korns CC: Subj: fddi problem Dave We've been experiencing a problem(?) with the FDDI ring and we're wondering if you could shed some light on the situation. I've contacted Colorado but they don't have much experience with FDDI - just like us. One of our DECbridge 500's, OCS_DB500, is reporting ring initialization messages. We had 14 such messages on 9-DEC. No ring initialization initiated or ring beacon initiated counters were incremented on any of the stations. <<< output of SHOW COUNTER commands confirming this available on request >>>. The DECconcentrator 500 which the bridge is connected to, OCS_DC500, did experience 8 ring purge errors. I understand from the Digital Technical Journal on FDDI that ring purging is a Digital specific feature. We are wondering what occurs when a ring ping error is encountered. Is this a cause for concern? Also, why does only one station report a ring initialization message in the ELMS logfile? Any information you can provide would be appreciated. Danny FYI - I've included the map and two snapshots of the counters. FDDI Ring Map as of 10-DEC-1991 11:37:51 Name DRC_DC500 Address 08-00-2B-24-FE-62 .___. .___. P - Primary Ring Concentrator: |___| Station: |___| S - Secondary Ring /|\ Attachments: trunk .___. b __.___. a .___. s .___. ==|___| |___| __|___| --|___| ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ring Station Station Name Station ID :S ^ P Icon Station Type MAC Address (MAC#) v | Active (concentrator) ports : | .___. : +==|___| DRC_DC500 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-24-FE-62 : | /|\ 4-port 1-mac DAC 08-00-2B-24-FE-62 : | Active: 3 | .___. 1 +-|___| DRC_DB500 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-1D-BE-FA SAS 08-00-2B-1D-BE-FA : | .___. : +==|___| JHW_DC500 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-1E-47-C9 : | /|\ 4-port 1-mac DAC 08-00-2B-1E-47-C9 : | Active: : | .___. : +==|___| SHB_DC500_1 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-24-FE-5C : | /|\ 4-port 1-mac DAC 08-00-2B-24-FE-5C : | Active: 3, 4 |_.___. 1 |___| OCS_DC500 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-23-3B-8E /|\ 4-port 1-mac DAC 08-00-2B-23-3B-8E Active: 3 | .___. 2 +-|___| OCS_DB500 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-1D-7A-88 SAS 08-00-2B-1D-7A-88 | .___. 1 +-|___| CSB_DB500 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-16-FE-71 SAS 08-00-2B-16-FE-71 : | .___. : +==|___| SHB_DC500_2 ID=00-00-08-00-2B-1E-1E-5A : | 1-mac DAS 08-00-2B-1E-1E-5A ---- End Of Map ----
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
424.1 | KONING::KONING | Paul Koning, NI1D | Tue Dec 17 1991 16:54 | 14 | |
I'd like to see all the counters; the description is confusing since it says that the bridge is reporting ring initialization, but none of the stations are. Since a bridge is a station, that's inconsistent. A possible reason is a marginal link; the link error counters could confirm that. Link errors could cause token loss (hence reinitialization) and also purger error (due to loss of Void frames). Note also that station insertion causes a ring reinitialization. Incidentally, occasional purger error is not a big deal. Same goes for occasional ring initialization. paul | |||||
424.2 | Additional information | JAYJAY::KORNS | Fri Dec 20 1991 11:11 | 12 | |
Two additional pieces of information, if they help ... 1) I asked about your point that a "Bridge" saw RIs but no "stations" saw them ... turns out that the "bridge" in quetion reported "RIs" through DECelms messages, but no "station" "Ring Initialization Initiated" counters were incremented anywhere. 2) I'll send the counters as Email which confirm. Thanks Paul, | |||||
424.3 | LEM errors on all station in the same ring. | TKTVFS::IDO | Naoki Ido, CSC/TOKYO, EWB, DTN 680-2456 | Fri Dec 20 1991 12:32 | 7 |
You should look at "LEM reject" or "LEM error" in Physical Port Counter for all of stations on the ring. If you have otehr vendor, you can use SHOW SIF OPERA command for the vendor and see LEM errors. I have ever seen same problem when customer was using non-dec MIC connector. Hope this helps you, naoki |