PacketFence - BTS - PacketFence
View Issue Details
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0001037PacketFencedocpublic2010-07-27 10:232011-01-26 15:38
Reporterobilodeau 
Assigned Torbalzard 
PrioritynormalSeveritytrivialReproducibilityN/A
StatusclosedResolutionfixed 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Version1.9.0 
Target Version1.9.1Fixed in Version1.9.1 
fixed in git revision
fixed in mtn revision
Summary0001037: Cisco 4500 series config ifIndexes misleading
DescriptionThe 4500 configuration is described along with the 2960 however they don't share the ifIndex naming characteristics. It would be clearer if they would be separated.
Steps To Reproduce
Additional Information
TagsNo tags attached.
Relationships
Attached Files
Issue History
Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2010-07-27 10:23obilodeauNew Issue
2010-09-15 11:09obilodeauNote Added: 0001659
2010-09-15 11:10obilodeauNote Added: 0001660
2010-09-21 16:07rbalzardStatusnew => assigned
2010-09-21 16:07rbalzardAssigned To => rbalzard
2010-09-21 16:07rbalzardNote Added: 0001684
2010-09-21 16:07rbalzardStatusassigned => resolved
2010-09-21 16:07rbalzardResolutionopen => fixed
2010-09-21 18:08obilodeauFixed in Version => 1.9.1
2011-01-26 15:38obilodeauStatusresolved => closed

Notes
(0001659)
obilodeau   
2010-09-15 11:09   
To clarify: ifIndexes on that switch are one after the other, 1, 2, 3, 4 no matter if port is fastE, Gig or on another blade/slot. Fake mac-addresses must be adjusted accordingly.

The only way to grab the ifIndex to ifDesc is to do an snmpwalk on the switch on IF-MIB::ifDescr.

Also think whether `snmp ifmib ifindex persist` should be required or not.

TODO:
- extract 45xx config from 2960 and document specific things
- think about recommending ifindex persist or not
- Write down in the switch's POD doc that it is problematic for 802.1X and MAB (because they do un-predictable port translation to 50xxx ports based on physical port slot this time).
(0001660)
obilodeau   
2010-09-15 11:10   
Reminder sent to: rbalzard

I would like to target this for 1.9.1 as it is trivial but we will need to discuss it first.
(0001684)
rbalzard   
2010-09-21 16:07   
Fix committed in revision 754d3f4357887e241098fa6aaa15eb61aab78394