Re: [c-nsp] storm-control errdisable with no traffic or vlan

Gert Doering via cisco-nsp <[email protected]> Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:59:58 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.network.nsp.cisco
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 07:05:59PM -0400, Joe Maimon via cisco-nsp wrote:
> Even with switchport mode trunk and switchport allowed vlan none, with 
> input counters in single digits, storm control immediately takes the 
> port down after link up. There was negligible traffic on the link before 
> or after the attempt.
> 
> Vendor's best idea is to turn off storm control, which I am only going 
> to do with an isolated switch on site, anyone seen anything like this or 
> have any other ideas?

Make the port a routed port (= ingress packets go nowhere), set up
a SPAN session, find out what sort of packets are coming in (broacast,
multicast, unknown-unicast) and how many of them.  Adjust limits,
as ytti said.

While I agree to "have storm-control anywhere" - if this is intended
to be a routed link, limits can be fairly high (the only reason why
you want storm-control is to protect the 4900M's CPU, not anything
else in the network).

OTOH, a 4900M?  really?

gert

-- 
"If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you 
 feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted 
 it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor."
                             Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             [email protected]

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 630 B)