Does LCP count towards ATM interface counters?

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by alexd, Mar 25, 2009.

  1. alexd

    alexd Guest

    Have a problem with an 1841 with 2x DSL WIC, where the second WIC won't
    re-log in without a reboot, ie it will drop periodically as DSL is wont to
    do, but not log back in. If I clear the counters on ATM0/1/0, they never
    increment, yet various 'debug ppp ...' show LCP CONFREQs being sent by the
    router.
    The debugging output suggests that CONFREQs are never answered by the other
    end, which suggests either a config or ISP problem, but why would either be
    resolved by a reload of the entire router?
    The first dialer/ATM interface work without a hiccup. Service on both WICs
    is from BT Wholesale resellers, so can't see why there should be in any
    difference in behaviour.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    20:23:53 up 110 days, 22:35, 3 users, load average: 0.03, 0.05, 0.00
    Sexy ladies, and nasty boys, all freaky freakin', to the robot noise
     
    alexd, Mar 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. alexd

    bod43 Guest

    On 25 Mar, 20:34, alexd <> wrote:
    > Have a problem with an 1841 with 2x DSL WIC, where the second WIC won't
    > re-log in without a reboot, ie it will drop periodically as DSL is wont to
    > do, but not log back in. If I clear the counters on ATM0/1/0, they never
    > increment, yet various 'debug ppp ...' show LCP CONFREQs being sent by the
    > router.
    > The debugging output suggests that CONFREQs are never answered by the other
    > end, which suggests either a config or ISP problem, but why would either be
    > resolved by a reload of the entire router?
    > The first dialer/ATM interface work without a hiccup. Service on both WICs
    > is from BT Wholesale resellers, so can't see why there should be in any
    > difference in behaviour.


    I don't know if the interface counters will increment
    however the cell counters in sh dsl int will, I would
    think.

    Cells: 18485248 0 105869985 0

    Hmmm. There may be ATM management stuff going on
    so it might be hard to work out.

    Does the WIC have TX/RX lights. 877 routers do.

    While you are there check the noise margins.
    I forget, I think 6dB is the min.
    Noise Margin: 11.0 dB 13.0 dB

    You could reasonably easily check if there is a bug/hardware
    problem in the router by swapping the configuration and
    physical lines between the two interfaces and
    see if the problem follows.

    You will only have to swap over the "dialer pool-member x"
    indices, I suspect.

    If you have old software consider an upgrade.

    What version do you have?

    e.g post the equivalent -
    sh ver
    Cisco IOS Software, C870 Software
    (C870-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(15)T7,
    RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)
     
    bod43, Mar 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. alexd

    alexd Guest

    bod43 wrote:

    > What version do you have?
    >
    > e.g post the equivalent -
    > sh ver
    > Cisco IOS Software, C870 Software
    > (C870-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(15)T7,
    > RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)


    Running 1841 Software (C1841-ADVSECURITYK9-M), Version 12.4(22)T, but I've
    logged a case with TAC now and will post the outcome.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    17:32:43 up 111 days, 19:44, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.11, 0.06
    Sexy ladies, and nasty boys, all freaky freakin', to the robot noise
     
    alexd, Mar 26, 2009
    #3
  4. alexd

    bod43 Guest

    On 26 Mar, 17:34, alexd <> wrote:
    > bod43 wrote:
    > > What version do you have?

    >
    > > e.g post the equivalent -
    > > sh ver
    > > Cisco IOS Software, C870 Software
    > > (C870-ADVIPSERVICESK9-M), Version 12.4(15)T7,
    > > RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc3)

    >
    > Running 1841 Software (C1841-ADVSECURITYK9-M), Version 12.4(22)T, but I've
    > logged a case with TAC now and will post the outcome.


    My view is that the problem is most likely in the the
    service provider, I have seen similar issues several
    times. I would try swapping round between the interfaces
    as suggested since this will provide hard information.

    There may of course be a bug that TAC find. Not all bugs are
    available to users:-(
     
    bod43, Mar 27, 2009
    #4
  5. alexd

    alexd Guest

    bod43 wrote:

    > My view is that the problem is most likely in the the
    > service provider, I have seen similar issues several
    > times.


    That was my initial suspicion, but like I said, why would a reload ever fix
    this? Is there anyway to simulate a 'reload' for just one interface?

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    14:23:12 up 112 days, 16:34, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.10, 0.08
    Sexy ladies, and nasty boys, all freaky freakin', to the robot noise
     
    alexd, Mar 27, 2009
    #5
  6. alexd wrote:
    > bod43 wrote:
    >
    >> My view is that the problem is most likely in the the
    >> service provider, I have seen similar issues several
    >> times.

    >
    > That was my initial suspicion, but like I said, why would a reload ever fix
    > this? Is there anyway to simulate a 'reload' for just one interface?


    Unplug cable from this interface and plug it back?

    Regards,
    Andrey.
     
    Andrey Tarasov, Mar 27, 2009
    #6
  7. alexd

    bod43 Guest

    On 27 Mar, 14:38, Andrey Tarasov <> wrote:
    > alexd wrote:
    > > bod43 wrote:

    >
    > >> My view is that the problem is most likely in the the
    > >> service provider, I have seen similar issues several
    > >> times.

    >
    > > That was my initial suspicion, but like I said, why would a reload ever fix
    > > this? Is there anyway to simulate a 'reload' for just one interface?

    >
    > Unplug cable from this interface and plug it back?


    Also:-

    conf t
    int dialer x
    shut ! Maybe wait a few seconds if you like.
    no shut

    can also try

    int atm x ! I think either this or dialer will likely work


    Shorter but does not always seem to work:-
    from exec mode (no conf t needed)

    clear int dialer x
    or
    clear int atm x
     
    bod43, Mar 27, 2009
    #7
  8. alexd

    alexd Guest

    bod43 wrote:

    > On 27 Mar, 14:38, Andrey Tarasov <> wrote:
    >> alexd wrote:


    >> > Is there anyway to simulate a 'reload' for just one interface?


    >> Unplug cable from this interface and plug it back?


    Alas it's remote so it's not an option [yet].

    > conf t
    > int dialer x
    > shut ! Maybe wait a few seconds if you like.
    > no shut


    > int atm x ! I think either this or dialer will likely work


    Sorry, should have mentioned I've tried both of these, to no avail.

    > Shorter but does not always seem to work:-
    > from exec mode (no conf t needed)
    >
    > clear int dialer x
    > or
    > clear int atm x


    I'll give that a shot.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    20:48:22 up 112 days, 22:59, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.10, 0.03
    Sexy ladies, and nasty boys, all freaky freakin', to the robot noise
     
    alexd, Mar 27, 2009
    #8
  9. alexd

    bod43 Guest

    On 27 Mar, 20:50, alexd <> wrote:
    > bod43 wrote:
    > > On 27 Mar, 14:38, Andrey Tarasov <> wrote:
    > >> alexd wrote:
    > >> > Is there anyway to simulate a 'reload' for just one interface?
    > >> Unplug cable from this interface and plug it back?

    >
    > Alas it's remote so it's not an option [yet].
    >
    > > conf t
    > > int dialer x
    > > shut   !  Maybe wait a few seconds if you like.
    > > no shut
    > > int atm x   ! I think either this or dialer will likely work

    >
    > Sorry, should have mentioned I've tried both of these, to no avail.


    Ah! Well that suggests to me that you might have some
    problem with the router.

    I don't resally know much about DSL technology
    however I would try leaving a few mins between the
    shut and no shut.

    Definately try swapping the lines over between the cards.

    > > clear int dialer x
    > > or
    > > clear int atm x

    >
    > I'll give that a shot.


    It probably won't work since shut/no is 'stronger'.
    No I don't understand it really.

    What about noise margin? Line errors?

    post sh dsl int
     
    bod43, Mar 27, 2009
    #9
  10. alexd

    bod43 Guest

    On 27 Mar, 21:34, bod43 <> wrote:
    > On 27 Mar, 20:50, alexd <> wrote:


    Here is how I would approach this.

    1.
    Check over the sh dsl int for anomalies
    Post here if you like.

    2.
    Try swapping lines over between the two interfaces.
    Change config as previously mentioned - 1 line per int.

    If problem follows the line then get on to your provider.

    If problem stays with the same WIC and slot:

    Switch to non-"T" software. You should ony use T if
    you need the additional latest and greatest features.

    Use 12.4(21a) or 22 mainline (guessing;) - no funny letters.

    e.g. c1841-advsecurityk9-mz.124-22.bin

    Test.

    Try loading the latest DSL software if it is appropriate.
    Check release notes carefully to make sure they apply
    to your hardware. Post WIC part numbers of in doubt.

    ftp://ftp.cisco.com/pub/access/800/
    Firmware_Download_Readme_3_0_10.doc

    Test.

    3.
    I suppose you could try swapping the WICs over
    to see if the problem follows. I have heard
    rumours of counterfeit WICs too.
     
    bod43, Mar 27, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Konrad Madej

    Interface counters unreliable?

    Konrad Madej, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,097
    Konrad Madej
    Nov 27, 2003
  2. mcse2k3
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    422
    Guest
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?ZGFodmVlZA==?=
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,065
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFodmVlZA==?=
    Jun 25, 2007
  4. Wombus
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    634
    Matthew Poole
    May 29, 2006
  5. Paul
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    359
    Mick34
    Jan 20, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page