MACFLAP_NOTIF

[mta772000]

Hi Antonie,

Today i and my colleague  Abdallah were installed new WANOS_VM_1.8 on the same ESX that holds the old WANOS_VM_1.7(x.x.34.242/23, VLAN34)(out-of-band-mgt port is gig1/0/34), we create new VHD, new VSwitch for the new VM, what happened is that when assign IP (x.x.34.244/23, VLAN34) when VM is up, sudden al the network is hanged and many messages appear on the Cisco_Switch_log which in generaly a MAC flapping between WANOS mgt port with all Cisco Switch Uplinks

interface GigabitEthernet1/0/34
description WANOS CORE
switchport access vlan 34
switchport mode access
end

%SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 001d.9267.59e8 in vlan 34 is flapping between port Gi1/1/2 and port Gi1/0/34
004144: May  8 12:39:22.454: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 4055.3903.b541 in vlan 34 is flapping between port Te1/1/2 and port Gi1/0/34
004145: May  8 12:39:23.183: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 001d.ba1d.5c83 in vlan 34 is flapping between port Gi1/1/2 and port Gi1/0/34
004146: May  8 12:39:23.687: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 001d.9267.59e8 in vlan 34 is flapping between port Gi1/1/2 and port Gi1/0/34
004147: May  8 12:39:24.383: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 082e.5f04.f9d7 in vlan 34 is flapping between port Gi1/1/1 and port Gi1/0/34
004148: May  8 12:39:24.685: %SW_MATM-4-MACFLAP_NOTIF: Host 082e.5f0b.949c in vlan 34 is flapping between port Gi1/1/1 and port Gi1/0/34
004149: May  8 12:39:32.201: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface GigabitEthernet1/0/34, changed state to down
004150: May  8 12:39:33.199: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface GigabitEthernet1/0/34, changed state to down

ITC.CM_SW1#sh cdp nei
Capability Codes: R - Router, T - Trans Bridge, B - Source Route Bridge
                  S - Switch, H - Host, I - IGMP, r - Repeater, P - Phone,
                  D - Remote, C - CVTA, M - Two-port Mac Relay

Device ID        Local Intrfce     Holdtme    Capability  Platform  Port ID
ITC.BS_SW1.*.com         Gig 2/1/1         146              S I   WS-C3560- Gig 0/1
ITC.GF_SW1.*.com         Gig 1/1/2         130              S I   WS-C3750X Gig 1/1/2
HP-DC01-N7K01.*.com   Ten 1/1/2         138            R S I C N7K-C7010 Eth 2/8
ITC.1F_SW1.*.com                               Gig 1/1/1         154              S I   WS-C3750- Gig 3/0/1
HP-DC01-N7K02.*.com    Ten 2/1/2         161            R S I C N7K-C7010 Eth 2/8
COM-WAN-R1.*.com                              Gig 1/0/3         138             R S I  CISCO2911 Gig 0/0
COM-WAN-R2.*.com                              Gig 2/0/3         172             R S I  CISCO2911 Gig 0/0
ITC.NOC_SW1.*.com                              Gig 2/1/2         124              S I   WS-C3560X Gig 1/1
ITC.CM_SW1#

all uplinks config are

 switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
 switchport mode trunk

your help is highly appreciated



Admin edit:
For your network security the post has been edited slightly to remove some of your confidential info.

[ahenning]

Hi Muhammad, based on this output it seems the appliance on first boot up selected the out of band management interface for either lan0 or wan0. The safest approach would be to configure the out of management interface first, while the appliance is out of path and then introduce it back.

Also, during the upgrade, the old VM should be shutdown, before starting the new one.

[mta772000]

Dear Antonie,

Many thanks for your great tips and advices, yes it worked perfectly as per your guideline. results was remarkable as per today optimization is around the 5 Gb, incredible.

Also, Thanks for the new version specially the new datastore size for Core, but for the Edge it is consume 4 times the core.

kindly find attached

[ahenning]

Hi, thanks for the feedback, that is quite a nice saving received there.

Since the Core might have multiple remote edge sites, the datastore on the Core can grow much larger than the edge sites, so although in this case both sides consume 8 GB, the percentage used is reported lower on the Core side since it still has capacity to grow further if there were additional edge sites.

[mta772000]

Hi Antonie, and thanks for quick response. it is understood now and make sense too. However we're looked for higher data cache store in order to meet our branches needs (daily file server usage around 9 to 15 Gb).

Thank you again for all you efforts.

[ahenning]

Hi, yes, for the higher volumes the 20 GB datastore per Edge of the plus version would be better suited.