Possible SNMP issue

User avatar
Eric Stern
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:57 pm

http://www.oid-info.com/get/1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.5

Looks right to me. The values are either 1000000000 (1,000,000,000 ie 1Gb) or 100000000 (100,000,000 ie 100Mb).

Nitroxide
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:20 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:26 am

To update this, one of the firmware updates on the Netonix finally stopped this issue in Solarwinds. Oh it was happy days when the logs weren't flooded with this.

Just upgrade to the latest RC

User avatar
sirhc
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 6258
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Lancaster, PA
Has thanked: 1469 times
Been thanked: 1115 times

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:58 pm

Nitroxide wrote:To update this, one of the firmware updates on the Netonix finally stopped this issue in Solarwinds. Oh it was happy days when the logs weren't flooded with this.

Just upgrade to the latest RC


Always try the LATEST firmware version FIRST before pulling your hair out and making a post asking help. :ak:

Glad your issue is resolved. :hurray:
Support is handled on the Forums not in Emails and PMs.
Before you ask a question use the Search function to see it has been answered before.
To do an Advanced Search click the magnifying glass in the Search Box.
To upload pictures click the Upload attachment link below the BLUE SUBMIT BUTTON.

noc@ethoplex.com
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:32 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:20 pm

It appears that TLS 1.2 isn't supported in v.1.4.7 when using SNMP for alerts. Can anyone else verify?
I needed to uncheck the "Secure" option to get test emails to get through. I have tested on 3 different switches.

I have not tried the beta FW. Would that take care of the issue? I would prefer not to use the beta FW in a production network if possible.

User avatar
Julian
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:47 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:11 pm

RC version numbering is a holdout from times past - 1.4.8rc12 is not beta firmware.
Name: Julian
Title: Tech Monkey Extraordinaire
Email: Julian@Netonix.com
Famous Last Words: "-should- work.. ish"

davidbaker
Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:19 pm
Location: Hermiston, OR
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 pm

Just a quick update and hopefully last update, after working with Solarwinds for months they found the issue to be with the Netonix. Ill be updating to the new firmware hoping it fixes my issue. Just wanted to post Solarwinds official response to me in hopes it might help others in the future.

This is from Solarwinds support:

"Development believes they have found the issue and its a problem with the device.

Put simply, when we walk the device we don’t see the SNMP responses we need. When we look at what the device replies with via Wireshark, there are responses on the ifHighSpeed OID (which wasn’t found in the walk) and those responses are responsible for the issue.

The bottom line is an SNMP walk from the device, and the responses we get while polling are different. That suggests that the device isn’t handing SNMP requests properly, hence we are reporting inaccurately. We suggest that you contact the vendor with the wireshark, and SNMPwalk and work with them to resolve the issue.


Here is the response from our dev team.

We ask for ifHighSpeed OID (1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.15).
According to SNMPwalk the device does not support this OID
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.11 = COUNTER64: 2082192
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.12 = COUNTER64: 23016738
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.13 = COUNTER64: 0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.14 = COUNTER64: 0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.1 = STRING: "1"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.2 = STRING: "2"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.3 = STRING: "3"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.4 = STRING: "4"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.5 = STRING: "5"

When you check the pcap (use filter ip.addr==10.12.64.137 && snmp.name contains 1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.15), the device sends responses on ifHighSpeed OID and the value is different with every poll (growing up as a counter). This seems to be device issue and customer should discuss with vendor. We report exactly what we get from device."

User avatar
sirhc
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 6258
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Lancaster, PA
Has thanked: 1469 times
Been thanked: 1115 times

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:42 pm

davidbaker wrote:Just a quick update and hopefully last update, after working with Solarwinds for months they found the issue to be with the Netonix. Ill be updating to the new firmware hoping it fixes my issue.


So you're running an OLDER version of firmware on the Netonix Switch?
Support is handled on the Forums not in Emails and PMs.
Before you ask a question use the Search function to see it has been answered before.
To do an Advanced Search click the magnifying glass in the Search Box.
To upload pictures click the Upload attachment link below the BLUE SUBMIT BUTTON.

User avatar
Eric Stern
Employee
Employee
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:41 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Possible SNMP issue

Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:19 pm

davidbaker wrote:Just a quick update and hopefully last update, after working with Solarwinds for months they found the issue to be with the Netonix. Ill be updating to the new firmware hoping it fixes my issue. Just wanted to post Solarwinds official response to me in hopes it might help others in the future.

This is from Solarwinds support:

"Development believes they have found the issue and its a problem with the device.

Put simply, when we walk the device we don’t see the SNMP responses we need. When we look at what the device replies with via Wireshark, there are responses on the ifHighSpeed OID (which wasn’t found in the walk) and those responses are responsible for the issue.

The bottom line is an SNMP walk from the device, and the responses we get while polling are different. That suggests that the device isn’t handing SNMP requests properly, hence we are reporting inaccurately. We suggest that you contact the vendor with the wireshark, and SNMPwalk and work with them to resolve the issue.


Here is the response from our dev team.

We ask for ifHighSpeed OID (1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.15).
According to SNMPwalk the device does not support this OID
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.11 = COUNTER64: 2082192
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.12 = COUNTER64: 23016738
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.13 = COUNTER64: 0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.13.14 = COUNTER64: 0
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.1 = STRING: "1"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.2 = STRING: "2"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.3 = STRING: "3"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.4 = STRING: "4"
.1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.18.5 = STRING: "5"

When you check the pcap (use filter ip.addr==101.12.64.137 && snmp.name contains 1.3.6.1.2.1.31.1.1.1.15), the device sends responses on ifHighSpeed OID and the value is different with every poll (growing up as a counter). This seems to be device issue and customer should discuss with vendor. We report exactly what we get from device."


This will be fixed in the next release.

Previous
Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests