<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
With Yul's permission, I'm forwarding this to ag-tech.
<p>By the way, disabling MMLS solved our original cat65k problem as well.
<p>- Greg
<p>-------- Original Message --------
<table BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 >
<tr>
<th ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BASELINE NOWRAP>Subject: </th>
<td>Re: [AG-TECH] Cisco 6500 code?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BASELINE NOWRAP>Date: </th>
<td>Fri, 21 Feb 2003 13:46:49 -1000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BASELINE NOWRAP>From: </th>
<td>"Yul F. Pyun" <ypyun@hawaii.edu></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th ALIGN=RIGHT VALIGN=BASELINE NOWRAP>To: </th>
<td>GRBell@lbl.gov</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><style></style>
Greg, someone forwarded this thread to me and I thought
I'd share my experiences. <font size=+0>We're running</font><font size=-1>
</font><font size=+0>IOS 12.1(12c)E2, and CatOS 6.3.8. We've had
problems with MMLS whereby by mroutes were not being completely setup.
Turning off MMLS clears the problem. Eventually, TAC was able to
reproduce our problem and issued a patch to CatOS 6.3.8. We're ok
now with that issue, but there's still something else going on that I can't
quite yet grasp...we have sites that occasionally lose a multicast session.</font> <font size=-1>Yul</font>>Date:
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:04:47 -0800
<br>>From: Gregory Bell <<a href="mailto:GRBell@lbl.gov">GRBell@lbl.gov</a>>
<br>>Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Cisco 6500 code?
<br>>Sender: <a href="mailto:owner-ag-tech@mcs.anl.gov">owner-ag-tech@mcs.anl.gov</a>
<br>>To: "Huerter, Martin F" <<a href="mailto:m-huerter@ukans.edu">m-huerter@ukans.edu</a>>
<br>>Cc: <a href="mailto:ag-tech@mcs.anl.gov">ag-tech@mcs.anl.gov</a>
<br>>Organization: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
<br>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-CCK-MCD LBNL V4.75 Build 1 (Windows
NT 5.0; U)
<br>>X-Accept-Language: en
<br>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK
<br>>version=2.21
<br>>X-Spam-Level:
<br>>X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.8, required
5,
<br>> EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,
NOSPAM_INC, REFERENCES, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,
<br>> USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,
X_ACCEPT_LANG)
<br>>
<br>>Martin,
<br>>
<br>>Thanks for this information. Have you by any chance disabled
multicast
<br>>multilayer switching on any interface (ie, "no mls ip multicast")?
<br>>
<br>>The 6500 problems we've seen involve input buffer queues becoming
<br>>"wedged" with packets that can't be cleared. TAC has explained
this as
<br>>analogous to a memory leak. Buffer space eventually diminishes
to zero.
<br>>
<br>>We've only noticed this on GigE interfaces that see a sustained, high
<br>>rate of multicast traffic. The symptoms look something like
this:
<br>>
<br>>ir2000gw#sho int gig 1/1
<br>>GigabitEthernet1/1 is up, line protocol is up
<br>> Hardware is C6k 1000Mb 802.3, address is 0004.c028.f80a
(bia
<br>>0004.c028.f80a)
<br>> Description: Gigabit backbone
<br>> <snip>
<br>> Input queue: 41/75/1453/1264 (size/max/drops/flushes);
Total output
<br>>drops: 0
<br>>
<br>>Instead of returning to zero, the buffer size grows, slowly approaching
<br>>the max value.
<br>>
<br>>- Greg
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>"Huerter, Martin F" wrote:
<br>> >
<br>> > Greg,
<br>> >
<br>> > We have been running 12.1(12c)E2 for 6 months now and have not
encountered
<br>> > any problems with multicast. Actually this is the most sound version
of
<br>> > native IOS we have run on our Cat. 6500's.
<br>> >
<br>> > Martin Huerter
<br>> > Network Design Engineer
<br>> > University of Kansas
<br>> >
<br>> > -----Original Message-----
<br>> > From: Gregory Bell [<A HREF="mailto:GRBell@lbl.gov">mailto:GRBell@lbl.gov</A>]
<br>> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:35 PM
<br>> > To: <a href="mailto:ag-tech@mcs.anl.gov">ag-tech@mcs.anl.gov</a>
<br>> > Subject: [AG-TECH] Cisco 6500 code?
<br>> >
<br>> > Has anyone found a multicast-bug-free version of IOS for the Cisco
6500
<br>> > platform (that is, for the 6500 running native IOS)?
<br>> >
<br>> > I'd be interested in trading notes.
<br>> >
<br>> > We had serious problems with 12.1(8b)EX3, then switched to 12.1(12c)E4
<br>> > after quite a bit of testing, and on Cisco's advice. But
yesterday we
<br>> > discovered what appears to be another multicast bug in that code
(it was
<br>> > interfering with OSPF).
<br>> >
<br>> > - Greg Bell, LBNL
</body>
</html>